Skip to main content

Full text of "Thomas P Joseph Commission of Inquiry-Marad Communal Distrabances"

See other formats


CHAPTER- VI 

"THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED To THE 

INCIDENTS AT MARAD BEACH, KOZHIKODE ON 2/5/2003 

RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF NINE PERSONS, SERIOUS 

INJURIES TO MANY OTHERS AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY 

In Chapter No V, I stated how, a minor incident during the New Year 
day celebrations in the night of 31-12-2001 grew into communal riot on 
3/4-1-2002 in which, two (2) Hindus and three (3) Muslims lost life 
several persons from either side suffered injuries and houses were 
torched or otherwise destroyed. Going by the evidence, the communal 
rivalry started in the area way back in 1954 when a dispute between two 
individuals belonging to the two communities developed into a 
communal clash. Going by the documents produced by the Government 
and the evidence of B W2, there was a dispute between a Hindu by name 
Thambi and Muslim by name Ahmadkutty, who were residents of 
Naduvattom within Beypore Panchayat limits. While so, the Hindus took 
out a precession in connection with the temple festival and deviating 
from the usual route, proceeded through the front side of the 
Naduvattom Mosque. When the procession reached in front of the 
Mosque, it is alleged, the processionists shouted slogans in praise of 
their Gods which was not appreciated by the ' Muslims who had 
gathered in the Mosque. A clash occurred, ultimately resulting in police 
firing resulting in the death of few persons. The official tally is four (4) 
while according to BW2, at least 10-13 Muslims died in the firing. From 
then onwards at least, there was communal division in the area. It is 
while so, that the minor incident occurred during the New Year Day 
celebrations on 31-12-2003. The A Parties alleged that the minor 
incident was exploited by C.P I.(M) / I.U.M.L. I N.D.F. to gain political 



mileage. According to the B Parties, communal violence started in the 
area ever since the R.S.S/B.J.P. started infiltrating into the Hindu 
Community in the area. They say that the area was peaceful until a 
group of Hindu' migrants from Tanur took up residence at Marad. It is 
revealed from the evidence of AW6, Sri. T. Suresh, Secretary of the 
Arayasamajam representing the Hindu_ fishermen of Marad Beach that 
in fact, some Hindu families had shifted residence from Tanur about 30 
years back and settled at Marad. He would say that in the coastal areas 
from Ponnani and reaching up to Puthiyangadi, there are no Hindu 
fishermen living since the last about 30 years. At Beypore, the Hindu 
fishermen are a minority. Rest are Muslim fishermen. According to 
AW6, the incidents during 2002-03 was the result of a long drawn plan 
to eliminate the Hindus from the coastal areas so that, the Muslims 
fundamentalists could dominate the area. He stated that there was no 
occasion for such large scale violence in January, 2002 and that the 
minor incident that occurred during the New year Day celebration on 
3 1-12-2001 was blown up. 

2. In Chapter V , I stated from Ext.S 13 series how the incident on 31- 
12-2001 developed in to communal riot on 3/4-1-2002. Though the A 
Parties have a case that one of the Hindu fishermen was attacked and 
killed by his Muslim adversaries in the evening of 3-1-2002 which 
sparked of the communal riot, going by the documents produced by 
Police, the first murderous assault was by the Thekkethodi Suresan and 
others on Kunhikoya, a Muslim at 7.45 PM. on 3-1-2002. At 8 PM, 
Prabhu and others attacked and killed Yunus. This was followed by the 
Latheef and others attacking the house of Pushparajan, an R.S.S worker, 
'and killing his cousin, Shinjith. That incident occurred at 8.10 PM on 3- 
1-2002 It was at about 8 A.M. on 4-1-2002 that while Aboobacker, 
referred in the preceding Chapter was allegedly going to prepare the 



grave for those Muslims killed the previous day, that he was fatally 
assaulted by Thekkethodi Suresan and others. The facts and 
circumstances which led to the murder of Kunhikoya at 7.45 P.M. on 3- 
1-2002 is also worth considering. The wordy altercation following the 
incident in the evening of 31-12-01 was settled on the spot itself. Even 
the wordy altercation between Sujith and Sakkir on 1-1-2002 also was 
settled. It is while so, that at about 7 pm , on 3-1-2002, Sakkir assaulted 
Sujith. At 7.15 pm, some Hindu men questioned Sakkir. Learning that, 
the friends and relatives of Sakkir reached the spot and there was a 
tussle. At 7.20 P M, both sides attacked each other with swords, 
chopper, stick etc. This was followed by Thekkethodi Suresan and 
others attacking and killing KunhiKoya at 7.45 P M. Therefore, the 
attack on Kunhikoya cannot be considered as the first onslaught in the 
series of , incidents. The series of incidents that happened until then, 
snowballed into that murderous assault. Exts. F2 and F 45 to F47 are the 
copy chargesheets in Cr. Nos 5/02, 6/ 02, 2/02. 3/02, and 4/02 
registered by the Beypore Police for the murders on 3/4-1-2002. Ext. F 
4 says about a bank announcement from the Marad Juma Masjid Mosque 
and following that, a group of people chanting 'Bolo Takbir' marching 
into the house of Pushparajan and killing Shinjith. The Beypore Police 
registered as many as 115 cases for the incidents which occurred on 3/4- 
1-2002. Those cases involved altogether, 422 accused at the time of 
registering the cases but, chargesheets were filed against 393 accused. 
Of them, going by the statement filed by the District Collector , 
Kozhikode, 213 accused were R.S.S./ B.J.P workers while 78 were C.PI. 
(M) men. 86 accused were I.U.M.L.workes. There were two I.U.M.L. / 
N.D.F. men while, two others were I.N.L./N.D.F men. Four(4) accused 
were C.PI.(M) / N.D.F. men while, 6 were I.N.L. men. There is no 
serious dispute that large number of activists of C.PI. (M), I.U.M.L. and 



B.J.P/R.S.S. were chargesheeted in those cases though, according to 
those Parties /Organization, their activists were falsely implicated. 

3. The Commission is called upon to report on the facts and 
Circumstances which led to the 'massacre on 2-5-2003. It follows, that 
it is witlhin the scope of this Inquiry to identify what all facts and 
circumstances led or contributed to the massacre on 2-5-2003. It is not 
very much in dispute that one circumstance that contributed to the,, 
massacre was the communal riot on 3/4-1-02. According to the ; lUML 
and Muslim organizations among the B parties; the killing of 
Aboobacker, very popular among the Muslim fishermen of the area for 
no reason whatsoever, at a time when he was going to prepare the grave 
for his Muslim brothren killed on 3-1-2002 pained the Muslim 
community and in particular, the youngsters. The N.D.F. units and 
I.U.M.L. units among the B Parties therefore, claimed that the relatives 
and friends of Aboobacker wrecked vengeance by retaliating on 2-5- 
2003. The C.PI.(M) units among the B parties accused the State Govt, 
for adopting a policy of appeasement in favour of the fundamentalists 
and claimed that the communal clashes on 3/4-1-2002 was the result of 
that appeasement. The Govt, machinery failed to prevent the clashes. 
They claimed that the C.P I.(M) activists were striving to spread peace 
and secularism. They accused N.D.F. and other Muslim fundamentalists 
for the massacre on 2-5-2003. The A Parties on the other hand, say that 
it was not merely a revenge for the killing of Aboobacker, but a case of 
the Muslim fundamentalist/ terrorist elements and organizations 
capitalizing the issue, instigating and assisting the close relatives and 
associates of Aboobacker to attack the Hindus. In the above situation, it 
is necessary to go into the circumstance which resulted in the 
communal riot on 3/ 4-1-2002. In understanding how that incident 



developed and culminated, it is necessary to go into the political 
situation that existed in the area. 

4. BW3, the President of Beypore Grama Panchayat during 2000-05 and 
a C.P.I.(M) activist stated that the Beypore Panchayat was formed in 
1936. That panchayat came into existence in the present' form in 1963. 
There was election to that Panchayat on political basis since 1979 
onwards. Since then, C.PI.(M) has been (and still is ) ruing the Beypore 
panchayat. During 2000, the total number of wards in the panchayat was 
20. In the election in 2000, the C.P.I.(M) candidates won in 10 wards 
while its ally, the Janata Dal won from 2 wards. The I.U.M.L. had 4 
seats, the Congress (I) had 3 seats and the B.J.P had 1 seat Thus, the 
Left Democratic Front (L.D.F.) led by the C.P I.(M) got majority and 
ruled the Panchayat. According to BW3, the B.J.P formed an alliance 
with the United Democratic Front (U.D.F.) in 2000. In the election to 
the State Legislative Assembly from Beypore Constituency in the year 
1991, the B.J.P. had forged alliance with the U.D.F. to defeat the 
C.PI.(M) candidate. The C.PI.(M) candidate won the election by a 
margin of about 7000 votes. In the election to the State Assembly in 
2001 also, the B.J.P had forged alliance with U.D.F. but, the C.PI.(M) 
candidate, Sri. V.K.C. Mammed Koya (BWl) won by a majority of 5071 
votes. The version of BW3 is that C.P.I.(M) was preventing all sorts of 
communal activities and divisions in Beypore Panchayat area. As 
regards the communal clashes in Beypore Panchayat, the witness 
claimed that after the Police firing of 1954, there was , communal 
clashes in Beypore since 1974. In 19 74, some - Hindus migrated to 
Marad from Tanur side. In 1982, there was a dispute regarding the 
burial of the body of one Biyyathukkutty at Marad, when that was 
objected by the R.S.S. and Arayasamajam workers. The witness was of 
the view that since then, there was constant communal clashes and riots 



in the area. Along with that, there were political clashes and murders. 
On 12-1-1993, the R.S.S. men murdered 'Peroth Rajeevan, a D. Y.F.I, 
worker. Ext. B 83 series are produced to show that case was registered 
against R.S.S. men for the murder of Sajeesh, a C.P.I.(M) activist at 
Marad. The witness claimed that learning about the communal riot on 3- 
1-2002, himself and others rushed to Marad Beach, but their vehicles 
were blocked and attacked by the R.S.S. men. He claimed that the 
C.PI.(M) participated in the peace initiatives and even set up secular 
relief camps. BWl, the M.L.A. from Beypore Assembly constituency 
said that mostly. People of Marad are fishermen and only few were 
fortunate to have education upto the 10th standard, with nobody 
employed in Govt. /private institutions. The financial condition of the 
people of Marad was very poor. The Muslim fishermen are controlled by 
the Mahal committee and the Hindu fishermen are controlled by the 
Arayasamajam. He claimed that after the first communal riot on 3/4-1- 
2002, a peace meeting was convened in Beypore panchayat office on 5- 
1-02. That was attended by the leaders of the various political parties 
and officials like the R.D.O. Relief Committee was formed under the 
auspices to the Beypore Panchayat with the District Collector, 
Kozhikode as chairman and R.D.O., Kozhikode as Convener. The 
Committee met several times. Ext.B85 is the Minutes for Seven (7) 
meetings. It is claimed that all the political parties except, the B.J. P. 
attended those meetings. The committee decided to collect funds for 
repairing the houses. There were two relief camps, one for the Muslims 
organized by the Mahal Committee and the other for Hindus, organized 
by the Arayasamajam. The C.PI.(M) started a secular relief camp in the 
house of one of its local leaders, Balaraman (BW2). Thus, the C.P.I.(M) 
was in the forefront to propagate and protect secularism in the area. 
SW2 is a C.P.I.(M) activist of Beypore panchayat. He traced the history 



of communal clashes in the area to the Naduvattam police firing of 
1954. B W2 would say that the stand of the Communist Party (then, 
undivided) was that the procession was taken along the front of the 
Mosque intentionally, to create communal division.- He also referred to 
the Hindu families migrating ' to Marad from Tanur and about the 
communal clashes that followed. He claimed that after the riots in 
January, 2002 the C.PI.(M) started relief camp in his house. The witness 
also referred to the political murders the area saw in the meantime and 
the elections on Political basis to the local authority. AW34, state 
Secretary of the B.J.P and resident of Naduvattom about 3 K.M away 
from Marad Beach claimed that the C.P I. (M) had upper hand in the 
Beypore Panchayat and Beypore Assembly Constituency right from its 
inception, people were unhappy under the C.PI.(M) rule over the 
panchayat as the C.P I.(M) adopted partisan attitude even in the matter 
of development schemes, people wanted a change and thus, with the 
support of people of different communities, PP Moideen Koya (H party 
No. 2), the candidate of the I.U.M.L. defeated the C.P.I.(M) candidate in 
word No. 20 (which takes in Marad) in the local body elections in 2000. 
He admitted that there was a Hindu - Muslim alliance. The C.PI.(M) 
feared that the alliance, would seal its chances. To ward off that 
possible alliance, the C.PI.(M) indulged in communal riot on 3/4-1- 
2002. The witness referred to the Political murders in the area involving 
the^ C.PI.(M), B.J.P/ R.S.S. and I.U.M.L. activists. AW3B, a resident of 
Marad and R.S.S activist, claimed that the riots on 3/4-1-2002 were 
sponsored by the C.PI. (M) and the N.D.F. and that the B.J. P. /R.S.S. 
had no role in it. He produced some documents which according to him 
probablised his contention hat the B.J.P/ R.S.S men were not behind 
those incidents. CW23, Sri. P. Parameswaran referred to the long 
history of communal division in the Coastal areas of Kozhikode District 



and stated how, in the Muslim dominated areas people belonging to that 
community had put up restrictions on the members of the Hindu 
Community even in the matter of religious observances. 

5. It has come in evidence that the people of Marad are socially, 
educationally, and financially backward. Their main avocation of life is 
fishing operations and that too, using conventional methods. Evidence 
collected by the Commission revealed that the mental condition of 
persons engaged in conventional from of fishing in the Sea will be 
connected to their riskful, hazardous dons job. The evidence revealed 
that the average educational qualification of those who are accused in 
the incidents of 2002 as well as 2003 is 5th standard. It is also in 
evidence that politically, the people of the locality had taken sides, the 
major party in the area being the C.P.I.(M). Most of the Muslims were 
the activists of C.P.I.(M). Some of the Muslims were supporters of the 
I.U.M.L and very few were supporters of the Congress. It is while so, 
that the B.J.P./R.S.S. tried to set its foot in the area. Gradually, the 
R.S.S/B.J.P. took control over the Arayasamajam which represented the 
Hindu fishermen. These facts are not very much in dispute. It is also a 
fact that right from the time election was held to the local Panchayat on 
political basis in 1979, the C.PI (M) either on its own, or with the help 
of its allies was winning the Panchayat and even the Beypore Assembly 
Constituency, , with U.D.F and the R.S.S./B.J.P opposing the C.PI.(M). 
Concededly, there was some sort of alliance between some of the U.D.F. 
partners and the B.J.P in the Assembly / Panchayat elections since 1991 
and that alliance found result in word No. 20 of the Panchayat in the 
2000 elections. The C.PI.(M). candidate had to eat the dust at the hands 
of the I.U.M.L. candidate who had the support of the B.J.P R.S.S. BW2 
conceded that I.U.M.L. leader, Mayin Haji (AW3) had secured 600 
votes more than BW2 (C.PI.(M) candidate) from Beypore Panchyat, in 



the Assembly elections in 2001. If the CPI(M) Candidate won the 
Beypore Assembly election in 1991 with a majority of around 7000 
votes, that majority ' was reduced to 5071 in the year, 2001. Ext. F4 (a) 
also shows that a UDF - BJP / RSS alliance in the Panchayat would be a 
formidable enemy for the CPI(M) . It is quite possible in the light of 
Ext. F4 (a) also that the C.PI.(M). considered the alliance between the 
UDF partners and the BJP as a possible political threat to it in future. It 
is true that it has come in evidence that in spite of such alliance, the 
CPI(M) candidates won the panchayat. Assembly and even the later 
Lok-Sabha elections with convenient majority. That does not necessarily 
mean that the C.PI.(M) was unconcerned with the political threat 
created by the new alliance. It is difficult to say that it was because 
some members of the Hindu Community migrated to Marad from Tanur, 
that Marad area become communally divided. There is evidence to show 
that even before that, at least in the coastal areas of Kozhikode district, 
communal division had set in, whatever be the motive behind. Ext. F38, 
the report revealed that in the 1954 incident, the Communist Party took 
up the cause of the Muslims. The evidence before the Commission 
shows that whether it be the undivided Communist party or later the 
C.PI.(M)., they were supporting the Muslim Community on every issue. 

6. It has come in the evidence that one section of Muslims put up a 
structure in Marad Beach near the temple and adjoining the sea wall. 
Alleging that the - construction is without permission and intended to be 
used as a Mosque, the Arayasamajam workers resisted it. According to 
them, the C.P:I.(M) led Panchayat Committee did not take any 'action 
against the unauthorized construction: Ext. C93 is the photocopy of the 
file No. Cl-807/00 summoned from the Beypore Panchayat office. It is 
revealed from Ext. C93 that on 13-11-2000. the Sub Inspector, Beypore 
reported to the Panchayat Authorities about the unauthorized 



construction and the possibility of that being used as Mosque by the 
A. P. group (A.P Aboobacker group). He also pointed out the law and 
order problems that could arise. On 14-11-00, the Secretary of the 
Panchayat directed enquiry and issued notice to stop the construction. 
On 15-11-00, the official of the Panchayat after enquiry, reported that 
the construction is unauthorized, violated the coastal regulations and 
that direction was given to stop the construction. On 16-11-00, the 
Secretary of the Panchayat issued notice to Sri. Aboobacker Mussaliar, 
President and Sri. Hamsa Mussaliar, Secretary of the SKSYS to 
demolish the structure and report compliance. Sri. Hamsa Mussaliar' 
replied that they had permitted construction of a temporary" shed in 
their property for the use of fishermen to keep their implements, the 
fishermen were unaware that permission of the Panchayat is required 
and that if the structure is removed, that will cause inconvenience to the 
fishermen. The staff of the. Panchayat reported on 7-12-000 that it was 
not a temporary shed, it was a permanent building constructed eleven 
(11) meters away from sea wall and suggested further action for its 
removal. On 8-12-00, the Secretary of the Panchayat ordered removal 
of the structure . The Sub Inspector, Beypore was requested to take 
necessary action. On 28-12-00, the Secretary of the SKSYS offered to 
remove the structure. But, the file does rot show that any further action 
was taken by the , Beypore Panchayat ruled by the C.PI.(M). BW3, 
President of the Panchayat committee during 2005 and C.P I.(M ) 
leader admits that there was no sanction from the Panchayat for the 
construction but, he does not know whether, any action for its removal 
was taken by the Secretary. It is quite unlikely that BW3 was unaware 
of the file. Fact remained that the building still existed. 

7. Though, AW26 (Sri. Kanthapuram A.P Aboobocker Mussaliar) was 
pleading ignorance about that structure and its use as a Mosque, there is 



10 



evidence to show that the , structure is really being used as a Mosque. 
Ext. C94 is the photocopy of letter dt. 5/05 from AW 15, State 
Secretary of the C.PI.(M) to the Chief Minister of the State. It is 
revealed from Ext. C94 that AW26 had addressed a letter to AWIS 
seeking his intervention to open the 'Mosque' for prayers and AW 15' 
requested the Chief minister to do the needful in the matter. There is 
thus reason to think that the C.PI.(M) ruled Beypore grama panchayat 
had been soft-pedalling the issue regarding the unauthorized 
construction in a bid to appease the concerned group. It is only quite 
natural that such stand of the Communist party and later, the C.P I.(M) 
gave sufficient space for the B.J.P/R.S.S. to have its foot hold in the 
Hindu Community in the area and particularly, the Hindu fishermen 
under the Arayasamajam. There is evidence to show that there were 
several political clashes during 1999 and before at various places in 
Beypore Panchayat with the BJP/ RSS on the one side and either the 
CPI(M) or the lUML on the other side. Few persons lost their lives and 
several persons were wounded (see Exts. F42 and F43). There were also 
communal clashes between the Muslims and Hindus within' Beypore 
Panjayat area on 6-12-2001 and the subsequent days (see evidence of 
BWl). It is in that background that a minor incident occurred between 
the two young men of the Hindu/Muslim communities during the New 
Year Day celebrations in the night of 31-12-2001. Going by the official 
records and oral evidence, that minor incident was almost settled and 
there was nothing which remained for a flare up like what happened on 
3/ 4-1-2002 as revealed by Exts. F48 series. Evidence revealed that at 
about 8.10 P.M. on 3-1-2002, Latheef and others belonging to the 
Muslim community attacked the house of one Pushparajan, an R.S.S. 
worker of Marad Beach. There was no reason why at that point of time, 
somebody should have gone in search of Pushparajan and attack his 



11 



house. For, Pushparajan was not involved in any prior incidents between 
31-12-2001 and 3-1-2002. Sensing danger, Pushparajan saved himself 
by hiding in the water tank of his house. The assailants, however, 
unable to find Pushparajan, finished his nephew, Shinjith, a boy aged 
about 18 years who also was not involved in any incident. It is 
therefore, certain that the assailants were targeting Pushparajan, an 
R.S.S. worker. BW2 admitted that Sainudeen, one of the accused in the 
case for attacking the house of Pushparajan and murdering Shinjith is a 
C.PI.(M) activist of Marad. It has come in the evidence of FWl that 
Pushparajan, along with few other B.J.P/ R.S.S. workers were accused 
in Cr. 45/99 of Beypore P S. for the murder of C.P I.(M) activist, 
Sajeesh at Marad Beach, (see also Ext. B 83 Series ) FWl who 
supervised the investigation of the cases relating to the incidents on 3/4- 
1-2002 claimed that Pushparajan had no involvement in any incident at 
Marad Beech from 31-12-2001 to 3/4-1-2002 and that the only reason 
for attempting at the life of Pushparajan was that he was accused in Cr. 
, 45/99 for the murder of C.P.I. (M) activist, Sajeesh. Shinijith, 18 year 
old cousin of Pushparajan murdered in the house of Pushparajan was 
not involved in any case at all and was accidentally seen by the 
assailants in that house. There is therefore, strong reason to think that 
the C.P.I.(M) activists were utilizing the occasion to settle scores with 
Pushparajan, their political adversary. Ext.S 13 contains reports (at 
P. 64) which indicate that the C.P I.(M) was unhappy about the alliance 
between the U.D.F. parties and the R:S.S/B.J.P in Beypore panchayat 
'hat report dt. 910-2002 stated that the C.P I.(M) local leaders were 
trying to make the people believe that they were the protectors of the 
Muslims of the area. If any public function or demonstration of the 
C.PI.(M) took place at Vellayil area (that place is near Marad), the 
demonstrators shouted provocative slogans against the Hindus to 



12 



mentally harass the R.S.S/B.J.P workers and appease the Muslims. Due 
to that, the R.S.S. workers had strong enmity against the C.PI.(M) 
activists. Regarding their activities in Vellayil Beach, it was reported 
that Arayasamajam and the Mosque committee of that area were in good 
terms and were settling issues amicably among themselves, but that was 
disliked by the C.PI.(M) activists. The C.PI.(M) was quite unhappy 
about that development and wanted to take political mileage out of 
every minor incident reported from the beach, to establish their 
influence particularly, among the Muslim community. The C.P.I.(M) 
was not showing enthusiasm in conciliation and instead, were waiting 
for an opportunity to precipitate issues in the communally sensitive 
Vellayil Beach area. If that be the situation in Vellayil Beach area, I 
find no reason to think that different was its attitude in Marad Beach or 
other parts of Beypore Panchayat particularly, in the political scenario I 
stated above. There is evidence to show the C.P.I.(M) activists were 
involved in the incidents at Marad Beach between 31-122001- and 4-1- 
2002. I stated from the official records that 78 of the 393 accused are 
C.P.I. (M) activists. It is admitted by AWIS also that CPI(M) activists 
are chargesheeted for the incidents on 3/4-1-2002. According to him, it 
is a false implication. Prima facie, it is difficult to think so. CW3 has 
given evidence that the CPI (M) and the BJP were trying to exploit the 
sensitive nature of people of Marad. He explained how, one group was 
spreading rumours about the opposite group to widen the rift. I do .not 
forget that after the incidents on 3/4-1-2002, the C.P.I.(M) activists or 
C.P.I.(M) controlled local body had called for peace meetings or set up 
'secular' rehabilitation camp admitting people of different 
Communities. That does not rule out the involvement of C.PI.(M) 
activists in the incidents on 3/4- 1 -2002. 



13 



8. There in no direct evidence to prove that the C.P.I.(M) as a Party is 
involved in the first communal riots on 3/4-1-2002. But, it is difficult to 
expect direct evidence for that. For, no Party activist involved in the 
incident will be inclined or willing to speak about that. It has come in 
evidence that Beypore panchayat and Marad area saw several, fierce 
political clashes and murders between the C.P.I.(M) or I.U.M.L. 
activists and B.J. P./ R.S.S. activists. There is reason to think that those 
clashes and murders were intended at gaining or retaining political 
upper hand in the area. AW3 and AW38 deposed that the communal 
riots in January, 2002 was sponsored by the C.P I.(M) which used its 
Muslim cadres for the incidents I stated above, the evidence of CW3 
who conducted a thorough study of the matter, that the C.P I.(M) and 
the B.J. P. were trying to exploit the sensitive nature of the people of 
Marad. CW3 stated that rumours intended at creating tension were 
spread by the political activists against their adversaries. BWs 2 and 3 
accused the BJP / RSS for the violent incidents on 3/4-1-2002. BW2 
who is a local leader of the C.PI.(M) was accused in the case for attempt 
on the life of an R.S.S. worker, Chambayil Gireesh (he was acquitted in 
that case). BW2 figured as , accused in the FIR registered in connection 
with the death (alleged to be a murder) of an R.S.S. activist, Manoj. 
BW3, another local leader of the C.PI.(M) and the President of the 
Panchayat - and few other C.PI.(M) activists were accused iii SC. No. 
75/01 for attempt on the life of another R.S.S. worker. Soman by 
throwing bombs. Viewed in the above backdrop, it is only reasonably to 
think that the C.PI.(M) activists were also instrumental in , the minor 
incident that occurred during the New Year Day celebration on 31-12- 
2001 developing into a major communal issue to create communal 
polarization 



14 



9. Next is the issue regarding alleged role of I.U.M.L. and B.J.P/R.S.S. 
activists. I stated that 213 B.J. P./ R.S.S. activists and 86 I.U.M.L. 
activists are involved in the cases relating to the communal riot on 3/4- 
1-2002. The A Parties examined AW38 to show that , the B.J. P./ R.S.S. 
had no role in the incidents in January, 2002. They produced some 
documents also to support that claim. I have considered that evidence. 
But, it is not convincing. The reasons stated by AW38 are not sufficient 
or convincing enough to rule out the involvement of B.J. P. / R:S.S. 
men. There is no much dispute that the B.J. P. / R.S.S: had strong 
foothold in Marad Beach at least among the Arayasamajam activists. 
Next to the C.P.I.(M), the largest Political Parties in and around Marad 
Beach and elsewhere in the panchayat are the B.J. P. /R.S.S. and the 
I.U.M.L. Evidence revealed that in all the political clashes the area- 
saw, the B.J. P. /R.S.S. activists were on the one side and either, the 
C.P.I.(M) or the I.U.M.L. activists were on the other side. These 
Political Parties, facts, evidence and circumstances revealed were trying 
either, to retain, or gain or regain upper hand in the area. Kunhikoya, 
killed on 3-1-2002 is a close relative of H party No. 2 (P.P. Moideen 
Koya), a local leader of the lUML. According to AW3, the lUML 
leader, Kunhikoya was a sympathizer of the lUML while, Yunus killed 
on 3-1-2002 was an activists of that party. Those murders also would 
have provoked the lUML activists to retaliate. The murder of Kunhikoya 
and Yunus belonging to the Muslim Community and that of Shinjith and 
Kunhimon belonging to the Hindu Community took place between 8 P 
M. and 9 P M. on 3-1-2002. According to F-Wl, it is correct to say that 
there was sufficient arrangements made by the assailants to come armed 
on short notice. Weapons were later recovered from the houses/ 
compounds of the accused. It is difficult to believe that such large 
number of C.P I.(M), I.U.M.L. and B.J.P/R.S.S. men got involved in 



15 



such a major issue without the blessings of atleast, their local 
leadership. It was political interests and other vested , interests that 
developed , the minor incident on 31-12-2001 which was almost settled, 
into a major communal issue and ultimately, resulting in the killing of 
five(5) persons on 3/4-1-2002, injuring several others and damaging 
several houses. That incident certainly, was on of the circumstances 
that led to the massacre at Marad Beach on 2-5-2003. 

10. Yet another unfortunate situation revealed by the evidence is the 
long delay in prosecuting the accused involved in the 115 cases 
registered in connection with the riot on 3/4-1-2002. Almost all 
witnesses, except of course DWI, the then Chief Minister claimed that 
there was unjustified delay in the Government granting sanction to 
prosecute the accused in those 115 cases which enabled the accused 
involved in those cases to come out on bail, indulge in conspiracy and 
other anti-social activities and gave occasion for the close relatives of 
some of those killed in the incidents of .2002 to wreck vengeance for 
such killings. According to DWI, there was no intentional delay. The 
delay was due to the unavoidable procedure. 

11. AW21, the then Director General of Police claimed that there was 
long delay in filing the chargesheets in the cases relating to the first 
communal riot. The Police department on its side, wanted to file 
chargesheets within 90 days. Investigation was completed within that 
period and request was made to the State Government to accord 
sanction. There was much delay in granting the sanction. Aw32, the 
then Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode stated that everything 
possible' on the side of the Police was done for obtaining prosecution 
sanction but there was delay. AW32 produced Exts. H37 to H43 to 
prove the steps taken by him to obtain sanction, at the earliest. The 



16 



delay, according to AW32, was p one of the reasons which resulted in 
the massacre on 2-5-2003. FW 1, Sri.T. Ramraj was supervising the 
investigation of the 115 cases registered in connection with the first 
communal riots. Ext.Fl series are the correspondence seeking 
prosecution sanction since in those cases, ' offence u/s.l53 A I.P.C. 
was involved). He claimed that the investigation of those cases was 
completed by 31-3-2002 and the CD. file of the 102 cases were 
submitted to the Public Prosecutor for legal opinion as offence u/s.l53 
A LP C. was involved. On 6-4-2002, the then Commissioner of Police 
(AW 32) addressed the D.G.P for sanction. On 8-4-2002, the file of 
those 102 cases with factual reports in each case were submitted to the 
Police headquarters. On 15-11-2002, prosecution sanction was 
received. But, a joint sanction order was received for 100 cases of 
Beypore police station (to be filed in various courts). Separate sanction 
orders were received for the cases of Feroke and Panniyankara Police 
stations. Thereon, FW 1 consulted the Public Prosecutor on the 
propriety and legality of producing joint sanction order for 100 cases. 
The Public Prosecutor opined that separate sanction order is required in 
each case. On 29-11-2002, the Commissioner of Police addressed the 
Director General of Police for separate sanction orders. On 3-1-2003, 
the D.G.P addressed the Home Secretary in that regard. On 8-1-2003, 
the Home Secretary opined that joint sanction is sufficient. On 4-3- 
2003, the Circle Inspector, Cheruvannor had Produced the joint Sanction 
order in one case before the J.F.M.C-V, Kozhikode. Hence, that Officer 
applied to that Court for certified copies of the joint sanction order. 
That application ,was rejected by that - the Court as the G.O. filed in 
that Court did not even appear to be the original (there cannot be a copy 
of a copy) ' The Circle Inspector, Cheruvannoor gave a report regarding 
that, to the Commissioner of Police. On 4-5-2003, the Home Secretary 



17 



opined that joint sanction is sufficient. FWl claimed that while so, he 
was transferred to Kannur on 30-12-2002. Later, individual sanction in 
each case was received and following that, after the massacre on 2-5- 
2003, chargesheets were filed in those 102 cases on 13-5-2002 (it is 
admitted that some of the accused in Crime No:82/03 of Beypore police 
station (Cr. 116/CR/03 of C.B.C.LD.) are accused in 'the cases relating 
to the incidents on 3/4-1-2002 also). In the- meantime, the accused in 
the cases relating to the incidents on 3/4-1-2002 who were in judicial 
custody got released on bail , after 90: days of their arrest since the 
investigating agency could not file chargesheets (for want of proper 
sanction orders) within the said period. I have narrated in chapter how, 
some of those accused were instigated and influenced by the 
fundamentalist elements to retaliate on the Hindus and how, even the 
steps taken against those accused u/s 107 CrPC , did not yield the 
result. 

12. The cultural /literary/political figures and ideologists examined 
before the Commission lamented on the lethargy on the part of the State 
Government in Prosecuting the culprits involved in the 15 communal 
riot without delay. It required a big hue and cry for the State 
Government to do that, even after the massacre' on 2-5-2003. All of 
them stated in one voice that the failure of the State government to 
prosecute those culprits without delay and the consequent delay in the 
trial of the cases emboldened the fundamentalist/terrorist elements to 
carry on with their communal activities, conspire, plan and execute the 
massacre on 2-5-2003. Sri.M.T. Vasudevan Nair (CW 19) opined that it 
appeared as if it required another massacre (on 2-5-2003) for the State 
Government to prosecute the culprits involved in the earlier communal 
riot. DW 1, the then chief Minister stated that the Law Department was 
of the opinion that joint prosecution sanction was sufficient in respect 



of all the 102 cases, and that there was some procedural delay in 
granting sanction. It is not clear on i what legal opinion, that decision if 
any, was taken by the Law Department. It is trite law that in all cases 
where offence u/s. 153 A of the Penal Code is involved, sanction for 
prosecution from the State Government is required. The various 
Authorities on, the point say that the sanctioning authority should apply 
its mind to the facts and circumstances of the particular case before 
granting sanction. The Law Department, Home Department or any other 
Department involved in the process of granting sanction should have 
known v this basic position of law and that the order of sanction was 
required to be produced in each cases. They should have in the normal 
course, learnt the difficulty that will be caused, apart from the legal 
flaw, if a joint sanction order is issued, that is produced in one case and 
then, certified copies are to be obtained to be produced in the remaining 
99 cases. They ' should have, learnt the delay that process alone would 
cause. The concerned departments were not very alert on the issue. The 
State Govt, cannot shirk its responsibility in this matter. Evidence 
revealed that though the investigation of the , cases relating to the first 
communal riot was completed by 31-3-2002 and since 6-4-2002 
onwards, the local Police authorities were clamouring for prosecution 
sanction, proper prosecution sanction was granted after long delay and 
ultimately, it was only on 13-5-2003 that chargesheets were filed in 
those 102 cases which even involved murder. Since chargesheets could 
not be filed within 90 days of the commission of offence, all the 
accused involved in those cases including murder cases, were released 
on bail. The A parties have a case' that prosecution sanction was 
purposely delayed by the U.D.F. Government at the instance of the 
I.U.M., a Partner in the ruling coalition. The Commission has no 
evidence before it to say, either that the delay was intentional or, that it 



19 



was at the instance of the I.U.M.L. But, from the facts and 
circumstances, the Commission can definitely reach the conclusion that 
there was unjustified delay on the part of the state Government in 
granting proper sanction for prosecution of the accused in the cases 
relating to the first communal riot. 

13. How that delay had any effect on the subsequent incident is the 
next question. It is said, delayed justice is denied Justice. I stated from 
the evidence that five (5) persons lost lives, several persons were 
injured and several houses were either torched or otherwise destroyed 
during the riot on 3/4-1-2002. Certainly, the victims and their relatives 
were aggrieved. I also stated from the evidence that Aboobacker, killed 
on 4-1-2002 was a popular figure in the Muslim community of Marad 
Beach. Thirteen (13) of the accused in crime No. 82/03 of Beypore 
Police station (Cr. 116/Cr/3 of C.B.C.I.D.) are close relatives of the 
three Muslims killed in first riot. As per Statement dated 24-1-2004 
filed by the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode, seven of the accused in 
cr.82/03 (Cr. 116/Cr/3 of C.B.J.P.C.I.D.) are close relatives of 
Aboobacker. Bijili, on of the accused is the son and Mohammedali, 
another accused is the brother of the said Aboobacker. Three of the 
accused in cr.82/03 are close relatives of Yunus, killed on 3-1-2002. 
Though, none of the eight (8) Hindus killed on 2-5-2003 were accused 
in any case relating to the riot on 3/4-1-2002, it is revealed from the 
statement filed by the Commissioner that eight persons who suffered 
injuries in the incident on 2-5-2003 were accused in some of the cases 
relating to the incidents on 3/4-1-2002. Of the said eight persons, three 
were involved in murder cases. Naturally, since the said persons found 
that 'those who were instrumental in the killing of Aboobacker and 
others were not placed before the Court for trial, they thought that 
justice was denied to them.. That ignited feeling of revenge in their 



20 



minds. That gave space for fundamentalist/terrorist elements to step in. 
Ext. C 22, the copy of documents received from the office of the Kerala 
State Human Rights Commission contained the copy to letter dt. 24-1- 
2003 addressed by AW29 to AW 32. It is stated in that letter that Bijili 
was found active among the Muslim fundamentalist elements 
(NDF/PDP) in Marad area and that he was being instigated for 
retaliation on the Hindus. 

14. I stated how, the communal division started in the area in the year 
1954 and the socially, educational and financially backward fishermen 
of Marad Beach were communally divided by vested interests to , 
protect or prop up their personal interests. Political clashes and murders 
marred the peace of the area. Then came the communal riot on 3/4-1- 
2002. Though tally wise, number of killing was more on the Muslim 
side by one, the Hindu side also came close by, with, two of their men 
loosing life. There was disturbing trend at Marad following the 
killings on 3/4-1-2002. The enmity between the two communities 
continued with added vigour. Both sides acquired weapons for offence 
or defence. Some of the relatives of Aboobacker were bent upon 
avenging his killing. The Hindu side also may not have been sitting 
quiet. They apprehended retaliation from the other side at any time. In 
fact; it is stated in Ext. S 12 that some R.S.S. men were stockpiling 
weapons in the building and business places of a house belonging to an 
R.S.S. activist, to protect the Hindu families in the event of a communal 
situation. That was the most opportune moment for the 
fundamentalist/terrorist elements to act. With their own agenda in mind, 
they instigated and assisted the relatives of Aboobacker to wreak 
vengeance for his killing, certainly to open up the issue again. This is 
revealed from various Intelligence Reports and other oral evidence 
produced before the commission. Witnesses have given evidence how 



21 



certain fundamentalist elements were operating in Marad .'Beach and 
giving trainings to their cadres. The delay in prosecuting the culprits 
involved in the first communal riot thus gave room for 
fundamentalist/terrorist elements to step in and poison the minds of the 
poor fishermen who were aggrieved at the killing of Aboobacker and 
others. That is how, the delay in granting prosecution sanction 
contributed to the massacre on 2-5-2003. Thus, it is revealed that the 
minor, insignificant incident that occurred in the course of the New 
Year Day celebrations at Marad Beach in the night of 31-12-2001 was 
utilized by the activists of the C.PI.(M), the I.U.M.L. and the B.J. P./ 
R.S.S. with the blessings of atleast, their local leadership and that 
contributed to the communal riot on 3/4-1-2002 which was one of the 
circumstances that led to the massacre on 2-5-2003, the unjustified 
delay caused by the State Govt, in prosecuting the culprits of - the 
communal riot on 3/4-1-2002 emboldened and enabled the 
fundamentalist elements to carry on their divisive activities, the delay in 
prosecution provided room for the fundamentalist elements to poison 
the mind of the close relatives of some of the Muslims killed on 3/4-1- 
2002, and to carry out their own agenda, instigated them to indulge in 
violence. 

THOMAS P. JOSEPH 

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY 



22 



CHAPTER - VII 

WHETHER, THERE WAS INVOLVEMENT OF ANY EXTERNAL 
OR INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OR ORGANIZATIONS IN THE 

PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF THE INCIDENT? 

The A parties alleged and believed, that the massacre at 'Marad Beach 
on 2-5-2003 was not a revenge for the killing of the three Muslims and 
in particular, Aboobacker on 3/4 -1-2002 but, it was a case of Muslim 
fundamentalist / terrorist elements and organizations, some of them 
having foreign links using the occasion to eliminate the Hindu 
community from the Marad Beach. It is their further case that certain 
political/ business interests were also actively behind the incident. They 
targeted the N.D.F. as the organization and the I.U.M.L. as the political 
party behind the massacre, with communal, political and business 
interest in mind. The CPI(M) organizations among the B parties also 
stated that the NDF is behind the massacre. The B Parties 2 and 3 and 
the Civil/ Police Administration stoutly denied these allegations .and 
claimed that the massacre on 2-5-2003 was purely a murder, the motive 
being the revenge for the killing of Aboobacker at Marad Beach on 4-1- 
2002. The Crime Branch C.I.D. Unit, Kozhikode led by AW19, Sri. T.V. 



23 



Kamalakshan, Superintendent of Police investigated into the massacre 
on 2-5-2003 and filed the chargesheet on 31-7-2003. Ext.C9 is the copy 
of the chargesheet. Ext. CIO is the copy of memo of evidence. As per 
Ext.C9 and evidence of AW 19, about 90 men among the 148 accused 
implicated in that case, participated in the execution of the massacre. 
They emerged from different sides at Marad Beach at about 6.15 P M. 
on 2-5-2003 and unleashed attack on every Hindu whom they found. 
The Crime Branch concluded that the motive for the crime was the 
killing of Aboobacker on 4-1-2002. In Ext. C 10 , the memo of 
evidence, it is stated that the accused entered into the criminal 
conspiracy at the Marad Juma Masjid in May, 2002, at Beypore on 8-8- 
2002 and again, at Marad on 16-8-2002. Going by Ext. C 10, the Crime 
Branch CID unit wanted to establish that some of the accused were 
undergoing training in 'Karate' on Fridays in the house of accused, 
Delhath at Marad Beach. This conclusion of the CBCID is not 
acceptable to the A parties who maintained that the CBCID had , not 
investigated into the involvement of other forces in the massacre. 
According to the A parties, the investigation of the CBCID was 
confined to the accused booked by them and: the conspiracy among 
them. 

2. The Commission issued notice under section 8 B of the act to B party 
No. 2 and the local units of the lUML in view of the materials placed 
before the Commission regarding their alleged involvement in the 
massacre on 2-5-2003. The Commission examined CW.32 who proved 
Exts. C37 and C38, statements of the accused in Crime No. 367/03 of 
Nooranad Police Station Going by Exts. C 37 and 38 and evidence ' of 
CW32 he arrested two of the accused in that case who were carrying 
iron rod, petrol in bottles and plastic can (which) were seized from 
them) and on questioning, it was revealed that they carried explosives 



24 



for the purpose of causing communal division by destroying certain 
places of worship and the Idol of Sree Narayana Guru. Going by the 
statements, those accused were NDF activists and were acting as per 
direction of their leaders. CW. 35 proved Exts - C57 to C63. As per 
Exts. C57 to C63, country bombs were seized from the Juma Ath 
Mosque in Meppayur Town on 16-12-1996, 4 of the accused connected 
with that were NDF activists and those country bombs were made to 
attack one Surendran, a scheduled caste for marring a Muslim girl by 
name, Sulekha. Going by the statement of the accused, they were 
instructed by the local leader of the NDF to attack Surendran. (Ext. B 1 
S 1 is the copy of judgement showing the acquittal of the accused for 
want of evidence to connect them with the weapons). CW.40 proved 
Exts. C86 to C88 in connection with Crime No. 257/96 of Perambra 
police station for offences punishable under sections 452, 427, 324, 307, 
120 B and 109 read with 34 I.P.C. and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive 
~ Substances Act. Ext. CSS is the copy of the statement of the first 
accused therein, Kunhumuhammed Falsi, who claimed to be the area 
Convenor of , the NDF. That case was registered against 
Kunhumuhammed . Falsi and others for abetting and attempting to cause 
the death ' of Surendran, a Scheduled caste for marrying a Muslim girl. 
CW34 investigated Crime No. 62/9S of the Kasaba Police Station. It is 
revealed from his evidence that he questioned A.T. Muhammed Ashraf 
(BW29) , and Subair (BW2S, accused in Cr. 62/9S and recorded their 
statements. Ext. C.49 series and C50 are the copy of the 

said statements. Their statement is to the effect that they had harboured 
Ooma Babu, the Al-Umma leader who was involved in the Coimbatore 
Bomb Blast case. It is stated in Ext. C43, copy of seizure mahazar that 
while searching the body of Ashraf (BW29), an Indian passport and gun 
were seized. Ext. C49 series is to the effect that Abdul Nazar Madani 



25 



(BW30), now detained in the Central Prison Coimbatore in connection 
with the Coimbatore bomb blast case had sent Ashraf (BW29) to 
Pakistan for training under the ISI, Ashraf had gone upto Bankok and 
unable to get US dollar s, had to return. Ashraf who is ' a resident of 
Marad claimed that he was the unit secretary of the NDF. Ext. C50, 
statement of Subair (BW28) was to the effect that he was a member of 
the NDF. Ext C51 is the statement of one Harris recorded by CW.34 to 
the effect that NDF was giving training in the use of fire arms at 
Marad, 'NDF was getting foreign funds and that the NDF had 
connection with Al-Umma. Going by Ext.C46 and 48, CW. 34 had, in 
the search in the house of Ashraf (BW29) seized the flight tickets and 
immigration clearance certificate of the said Ashraf for his travel from 
Thiruvanathapuram to Bankok. Exts. C52 and 53 are copy of the 
statements of Abdul Salam & Muhammed recorded by CW.34 which 
also are to the effect that they were NDF activists of the area. Ext. C45 
is the statement of .. Ayyappan, accused in Cr. 62/98. He claimed that 
he was making firearms (for the use of some fundamentalists). Ext. C56 
is the copy of draft chargesheet in Cr. 62/98. Going by the above 
statements and other documents, the activists of Al-Uma of Tamul 
Nadu, the PDP and the NDF were collecting weapons and were engaged 
in fundamentalist/terrorists activities. CW.36 proved Exts. C64 to 67. 
CW.36 investigated Crime No. 375/95 of Kuttiadi police station for 
offence's under sections 201, 286, 304 A IPC, section 9 ( 1 ) of the 
Explosives Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 
The allegation was that the accused therein, claimed to be SIMI activists 
manufactured bombs in the Haul of Juma Ath Mosque, Kuttiadi on 13- 
12-95 meant to kill the accused in 'Aboobacker Master Murder Case' in 
case those accused (RSS men) were acquitted by the Court. The country 
bomb accidentally burst in the course of its manufacture and one of the 



26 



makers succumbed to the injuries. CW.3B proved Exts. C72 to 76 in 
connection with Crime No. 1039/03 of Kannur Town police station 
against the accused therein, claimed to be NDF activists for attacking 
the office of the. 'Rashtra Deepika' ' at Kannur on 1 O- 12-2003 for 
publishing report against the NDF that the NDF is engaged in 
desecrating places of worship. CW.39 proved Exts. C77 to 84. Going by 
Exts. C77 to 84 and evidence of CW.39, the then Sub Inspector, Manjeri 
he learned about the explosion in the compound of Green Valley 
Foundation, Manjeri, in the morning of 8-7-2001, reached there, found 
remnants of explosives, prepared mahazar and recorded statement of the 
witnesses. According to the , witness, the Green Valley Foundation is 
controlled by the NDF. Material objects collected from the scene by the 
Scientific Expert were sent to the laboratory for examination and the 
report of examination revealed that Nitroglycerine which is an active 
principal of dynamite, was detected in those material objects. According 
to the witnesses, the explosion occurred when the secret unit of the NDF 
was testing a timer device. It is also revealed from Exts. C77 to 84^ and 
the evidence of CW 39 that the 26 and odd acre compound of the 
Foundation is well protected by barbed wire fencing on all sides, the 
NDF men stood guard there, day and night and that NDF activists were 
getting training in that Foundation. (That case is still under 
investigation). CW.41 proved Ext. C89 to C.92 in connection with 
Crime No. 220/04 of Chalissery Police Station: Going by Exts. C89 to 
92, and evidence of CW41, then Addl. SI, Challissery, NDF activists 
who were running a secret training camp attacked the defacto 
complainant who stepped into that camp for food at the time of 
distribution of food for the trainees in the camp. It is alleged that the 
NDF activists thought that the defacto complainant had come there for 
Spy work. CW 33 proved Ext. C39 to 41. As per Exts. C39 to 41 and 



27 



the evidence of CW 33, about 100 pipe bombs were seized from beneath 
Koomankallu river at Vengara in Malappuram District on 31-12 1995. 
Ext. C40 and C40 (a) are ' the statement of the 1st accused in that case 
- Cr. 194/95 of Vengara PS. for offences under section 4 of explosive 
Substances Act and S. 120 (b) r/ w section 34 of the Penal Code that he 
was associated with SIMI and worked in that Organization till the age of 
30 years. Imam Ali, the Al-Uma leader stayed for days in Vengara and 
gave training for the 1st accused and other SIMI activists in making 
country bombs. Imam Ali had undergone training in POK. 

3. C W 1 was the commissioner of Police, Calicut during 1997-99 (she 
is now working in Uttar Pradesh. She was examined by Video 
Conferencing). Ext. C 17 is an unauthenticated copy of Police report 
sent to the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), during 1998. That 
copy was produced before the Commission by AW7, Sri. Kummanam 
Rajasekharan (there is a controversy how, AW7 got a copy of the Police 
report. But, the Commission - is not required to go in to that question 
and hence that issue is left there). On the basis of Ext. C 17, the 
Commission directed the D.S.B., Kozhikode Unit to produce the attested 
copy of Ext. C 17. Accordingly, CW2 who was holding charge of the 
Asst. Commissioner, D.S.B., Kozhikode . Unit produced the attested 
copy which is marked Ext.ClS. CW 1, Smt. Neera Rawath filed an 
affidavit before the Commission. That affidavit is dated 12-4-2005 and 
is marked Ext.C 16. In that affidavit and in her evidence, she asserted 
that Ext.C 18 is a copy of the report kept in the office of the. Assistant 
Commissioner (District Special Branch); Kozhikode and that ' it is a 
genuine record relating to the confidential files about the activities of 
the N.D.F. and other organizations kept in the office of the Asst. 
Commissioner, D.S.B., , Kozhikode during her tenure as the 
Commissioner. She claimed that she had directed the then Circle 



28 



Inspector, Nadakkavu , (CW3, Sri. Pradeepkumar) to conduct study 
about the forces targeting at destroying the communal amity in the city. 
It is based on that study that the said report (copy of which is Ext.C 18) 
was , prepared. It is stated in Ext.C 18 that the N.D.F. was running 
physical training centres at various pleases in Kozhikode district 
andthat such physical training included training in Karate and 'Kalari' 
with swords and other weapons. Selected members from the N.D.F were 
sent for further training 'for one year, at its training center at Manjeri. 
Iran and the I.S.I, of Pakistan were the money sponsoring agencies of 
the NDF. Sympathizers from Gulf countries also contributed largely. It 
is also stated in Ext.C 18 that the Students Islamic Movement of India 
(SIMI) was working under the direction of the N.D.F. leaders. Several 
cases were registered against persons belonging to those groups. A ' 
further report in Ext. C 18 is that two Ambulance vans ' of Solidarity 
Trust and Crescent Cultural Trust (both at Kozhikode) were moving in 
Calicut. City, carrying not only patients, but also weapons. The report 
said that the N.D.F. was having units at Kappakkal, Chakkumkadavu, 
Panniyankara and Beypore (all these places are near Marad) and that 
Sri. A. Wahab, Maliyekkal House, Kinasseri (AW36) was a member of 
the N.D.F (the Govt, may refer to Ext.S 15, the profile of AW36 
prepared by the S.S.B. where, his organizational affiliations are 
reported. Aw36 however, denied that he was a member of the N.D.F.) It 
is mentioned in Ext. C 18 on the list of N.D.F. activists maintained in 
Beypore police station that Aboobacker @ super Aboobacker s/o. 
Muhammed kutty, a resident of Marad, (it has come in the evidence of B 
W2, a resident near Marad Beach and AW24 that Super Aboobacker is 
none other than Aboobacker, killed i at Marad Beach on 4-1-2002. That 
version of BW2 and AW24 is not challenged ) was an N.D.F activist. In 
page No:66 of E xt.C18, 'it is stated Ashraf and Subair Police Station 



29 



and presently, undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Coimbatore 
in connection with the Coimbatore Bomb Blast) were Al-Uma workers. 
They along with Rasheed, also accused in accused in Crime No. 62198 
are also described as N.D.F. workers associated with its Payyanakkal 
unit. ( As per Ext. C49 and C50, statements of Ashraf and Subair 
recorded by CW34, they are NDF activists. Subair claimed that he was 
the Unit Convenor. According to them, they had collected weapons for 
Ooma Babu) CW3, Sri. CM. Pradeepkumar, now working as Dy.S.P., 
Vigilance stated that as per the direction of CW 1, he had ' conducted 
study about the activities of certain forces targeting at communal amity, 
and indulging in drug trafficking and gold smuggling . He claimed that 
he had conducted study about the N.D.F. The N.D.F. tried to achieve 
publicity by involving itself in human rights activities, discrimination 
against the socially backward classes and other social problems, though, 
the N.D.F. highlighted human right issues, their field level workers 
were communally sensitive, were previously working in communal 
organizations arid were involved in several cases. The workers of the 
N.D.F. infiltrated into many Political parties to get protection for their 
unlawful activities. N.D.F. and other fundamentalist organizations 
religious / fundamentalist activities. He claimed to have questioned 
Abdul Nassar Madani (BW 30), involved in the Coimbatore Bomb Blast 
case. Madani had sent Asharf (BW 29) to Pakistan for training under the 
ISI. CW3 had also questioned Subair of Marad Beach, an N.D.F. worker 
(BW 28) involved in Crime No. 62/98 of Kasaba Police station. CW3 
assisted the police team in searching the house of the said Subair. The 
witness claimed that the Muscat- Karachi boarding pass and luggage 
coupons were seized from the house of the said Subair. The diary seized 
from the house of Subair (Ext.ClOO is its photo copy) revealed his 
connection with the N.D.F. and how the N.D.F. raised funds from the . 



30 



Gulf. The witness claimed that Ooma Babu was involved in many 
terrorist activities in North Kerala. After the Coimbatore Bomb blast 
incident, Ooma Babu was given shelter at Kozhikode by Ashraf and 
Subair, accused in crime No. 62/98 of Kasaba Police station. Ooma 
Babu was an Al-Uma worker of Tamil Nadu. The witness claimed that 
I.S.I, had strong base in Kashmir, Delhi, Bengal and Bombay. Kerala is 
placed in a very sensitive situation. According to the witness 
Intelligence Reports in that line are correct. The Intelligence Agency 
had reported that the Bomb blasts in Coimbatore and Bombay are 
linked with the I.S.I. Explosives like RDX were seized from Badukkal 
near Mangalapuram, Combatore etc. In such a situation, the witness 
claimed that it is' difficult to believe that Kerala is isolated or 
insulated from such activities (of the I.S.I.). The witness claimed that 
SIMI, banned by Central Government ' for ifs alleged unlawful and 
terrorist activities was the student wing of the banned Jama-athe - 
Islami. Information is that many SIMI members later Joined the N.D.F. 
AW24 who -retired as Supdt. of Police and worked in Kozhikode 
District for long in different capacity, claimed that he was a member of 
the special squad formed by the Police Head Quarters in the year, 2000 
for investigation some cases involving murder and such other offences 
allegedly, committed by certain Muslim fundamentalists. He claimed 
that some of those murders were planned and executed by certain 
extremist elements in the N.D.F. He reported to his superior officers 
that to some extent, the N.D.F. was indulging in communal activities. 
The N.D.F. was defending many of its activities under the label of 
human rights activities. AW 24 had visited Marad Beach and learnt ' 
that 'super Aboobacker' killed in the 1 st communal riot was an N.D.F. 
activist within Beypore P.S. limits and that the ' name (super 
Aboobacker) was included in the list of N.D.F. activists maintained by 



31 



the Beypore Police, (as stated in Ext.ClS). FWl who supervised the 
investigation of the cases relating to the incidents on 3/4-1-2002 
claimed that while questioning the accused, he learnt about the 
activities of the NDF in Marad Beach. 

4. According to FW6, the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode at the 
time of the massacre, that incident was meticulously and carefully 
planned and executed by the radical Muslims with the help of some of 
the relatives of the Muslims killed in the 1st communal riot. Aw21, the 
.then D.G.P claimed that there were reports that the N.D.F. is a terrorist 
organization. According to him, the Police considered the N.D.F. as a 
terrorist organization. AW21 does not have the impression that the 
massacre on 2-5-2003 was the result of revenge by the relatives of 
Aboobacker, killed in the first riot. 

5. As regards the alleged involvement of ' the N.D.F. and I.U.M.L. in 
the planning and execution of the massacre at Marad Beach on 2-5- 
2003, the A parties adduced the following evidence: 

AW3 is a local leader of the I.U.M.L. and chairman of the Calicut 
Development Authority (CDA). He claimed that Sri. P. P. Modeen Koya 
(H Party No. 2), one of the accused in Crime No.82J03 of Beypore PS 
(cr. 116/03/CR of CBCID) was treasurer of the I.U.M.L. committee, 
Beypore and member of the Beypore Panchayat (representing the 
I.U.M.L.). Sri. P P Modieen Koya was also the secretary of the Marad 
Juma Masjid Committee during the' relevant time. During April- May, 
2002, P P Modieen Koya met AW3. Modieen Koya came with 
Muhammed Ali, brother of late Aboobacker ( and accused in Cr. 82/ 03 
of Beypore P S.-Cr.l I6/CR/03 of C. B.C.I. D.). Muhammed Ali told AW3 
that he wanted to avenge the killing of his brother, Aboobacker but, 
Aw3 dissuaded him. AW3 claimed that he thought that though the threat 



32 



made by Muhammed Ali was potential, the latter had given up the idea 
as per his advise. Ext.AS (a) is the report in 'Desabhimani' dated 8-5- 
2003 to the effect that the massacre on 2-5-2003 was with the 
knowledge of AW3. The witness claimed that he was questioned by the 
Crime Branch (which investigated the massacre) twice. He denied that 
he had produced some of the accused before Crime ' Branch and stage- 
managed their arrest. He also denied that himself or any other I.U.M.L. 
leader had any role in the massacre. According to AW 3, 13 accused 
including Moideen Koya involved in crime No. 82/03 relating to the 
massacre on 2-5-2003 are his party members but claimed that they were 
suspended from the Party pending enquiry. He was confronted with 
press reports that the Chief Minister (DW 1) had stated in the State 
Assembly that 82 of the accused are I.U.M.L. activists. The witness 
claimed that the said statement is not correct. It is revealed from 
Ext.X2, the copy of the reply given by the Chief Minister in the state 
Assembly on 22-7-2003 regarding Party affiliation of the accused in 
Crime No. 82/ 03 that 82 accused were members of the I.U.M.L. It is 
also revealed that Sl/no. 71 in Ext. X2 is another local leader of the 
I.U.M.L. AW3 claimed that he is aware that some N.D.F. men were 
engaged in activities in Marad Beach. He is aware that there were 
N.D.F. men in that area (Marad Beach). 

6. AW4 was the Chief Reporter of 'New Indian Express', Kozhikode 
during the relevant time. Ext. A 12 (a) is his report dated 11-5-2003 that 
the idea (of the assailants) was to ignite large scale riot than what 
happened on 2-5-2003, taking advantage of the revenge some persons 
had in the killing of Aboobacker. The witness learnt from his source in 
the police that few persons alone could not plan, operate and execute a 
massacre, so meticulously. There was organizational backing behind the 
massacre. There was a well knit organization which was capable of 



33 



providing intelligence input, training and funding, behind the massacre 
on 2-5-2003. Ext.A13(a) is his report in the 'New Indian Express' (NIE) 
dated 7-6-2003 that accused, Muhammed Rafi and Sakeer (Crime 
No. 82/03) had links with terrorist organizations. Sakeer was on old 
N.D.F. worker. They ignited desire for revenge in the mind of some of 
the relatives of Aboobacker. Ext.AlS (a) is another report in the 'New 
Indian Express' dated 8-5-2003. That report stated that the real force of 
the N.D.F. is still a puzzle. Ext. A 14 (a) is yet another report in the 
'New Indian Express' dated 10-6-2003 to the effect that the arrest of 
some of the accused in crime No. 82/03 was stage-managed to save 
I.U.M.L. interest since the I.U.M.L feared that if a proper investigation 
is made, its leaders will be in the dock. An I.U.M.L. leader was 
producing some, of the accused before the Grime Branch team which 
investigated into the massacre. The witness claimed that the N.D.F. 
leaders had, in a press conference claimed that their activists are 
working in all political parties except, the B.J. P. He had attended that 
press conference called by Sri. E. Aboobacker, the then Chairman of the 
N.D.F. in the office of the N.D.F. at Kozhikode. According to the 
witness, E. Aboobacker, P Koya and Nazarudheen Elamaram were 
members of the erstwhile SIMI. Enquiry by the witness revealed that 
Aboobacker, killed on 4-1-2002 was an N.D.F. worker though, 
everybody thought that he joined the C.P.M. (The C.P.I.(M), leaders, 
BWs.I and 2 denied that Aboobacker was their party man) Ext.A16 (a) is 
a report in the 'New Indian express' dated 4-5-2003 that a well knit 
gang was behind the massacre, as revealed by his sources in the police 
department. Ext.A20 (a) is the report dated 24-5-2003 that satellite 
phones seized from terrorists of Kashmir revealed , telephone numbers 
up to Malappuram District. Ext.B7 (a) is the report in 'New Indian 
Express' dated 5-5-2003. That is a statement of AWIS; Sri. Pinarai 



34 



Vijayan.. State Secretary of the C.PI.(M) blaming the N.D.F. for the 
massacre at Marad Beach. Going by the report, Sri. Pinarai Vijayan was 
of the opinion that the massacre was w deliberate and well planned, one 
sided attack carried out by the Muslim fundamentalists led by the 
N.D.F. 

7. AW6, the Secretary of the Arayasamajam claimed that N.D.F. was 
active at Marad.. He claimed that a gang from Tanur planned the 
massacre. Ext. A24 (a) is the report in 'Malayala Manorama' dated 10- 
5-2003 to that effect. Ext.A26 (a) is the report in 'Madhyamarn' dated 
4-5-2003 that Sri. T.K. Vinod Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Calicut 
(FW6) stated that the attack (on 2-5-2003) was in 'guerilla style'. 
Ext.A23 (a) is the report in the 'Deepika' dated 8-5-2003 about the role 
of highly placed person of the Calicut Development Authority (CDA- 
AW3 is the Chairman of the CDA) in the incident on 2-5-2003. 

8. AW7, Sri. Kummanam Rajasekharan was .of the opinion that 
fundamentalist/ terrorist activities increased in the State during the last 
5 years, that the State Government was not seriously considering' the 
reports of the Judicial Commissions on communal clashes or carrying 
out the recommendations made in it. He referred to the instance where 
'Aravindaksha Menon Commission' which inquired into the 'Poonthura 
Riots' had pointed out that a vehicle was used by the terrorists to 
transport weapons but, no action was taken to trace that vehicle though, 
ist registration number was given in the report. He claimed that after the 
SIMI was banned, its activists joined the N.D.F. and alleged that the 
N.D.F was leading the terrorist activities in the State for the last 6-7 
years, but the Government did not initiate any action against them. No 
serious action was taken on the blast in the Green Valley Foundation 
(Manjeri) which is the headquarters of the N.D.F. The witness was of 



35 



the opinion that the massacre on 2-5-2003 was not a retaliation for the 
murder of Aboobacker. One reason is that none of those killed on 2-5- 
2003 were accused in any of the cases registered for violence on 3/4-1- 
2002. Aboobacker was an N.D.F. activist. If the motive for the massacre 
was to take revenge for the killing of Aboobacker, the assailants should 
have targeted the accused in the case for the killing of Muslims on 3/4- 
1-2002. Instead, the assailants attacked unsuspecting Hindus who were 
either chatting on the beach or doing business in their premises. It is 
also the complaint of the witness that the then District Collector, 
Sri.T.O. Suraj was not impartial. The District Collector was lethargic in 
dealing with the communal situation. The I.U.M.L. was also involved in 
the massacre on 2-5-2003. Relying on Ext.X2, the witness claimed that 
82 of the accused i Crime No. 82103 were I.U.M.L. men. They included 
PP. Moideen Koya, local leader of I.U.M.L. But, the witness was not 
very ' sure whether the I.U.M.L. leadership as a whole, had prior 
information about the massacre. He is sure that certain leaders of 
I.U.M.L. including AW3; had prior information about the massacre. P P 
Moideen Koya, one of the accused in Crime No. 82/03 and local leader 
of the I.U.M.L. was closely associated with the Marad Juma Masjid. 
That mosque committee also'^ had prior information about re massacre. 
The witness alleged that Sri. P K. Kunhalikkutty, (AW 12) the then 
Industries Minister had close connection 'with the N.D.F. He produced 
Exts.X3 and X4 to substantiate that claim. It is also the ' opinion of the 
witness that the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch on the 
massacre was not proper in that, the Crime Branch did not investigate 
into the involvement of external/' internal forces and instead, proceeded 
on the line that the massacre was retaliation for the killing of 
Aboobacker. The Crime Branch wanted to avoid C.B.I, investigation, as 
decided by the State Government. The State .Government on its part. 



36 



wanted that involvement of forces behind the massacre should not be 
revealed. The State Government was succumbing to the pressure of the 
I.U.M.L. The witness referred to the discussions at Thiruvanathapuram 
at the instance of Kozhikode Press Club for rehabilitation of the 
displaced families at Marad Beach and claimed that Sri. P.K. 
Kunhalikkutty (AW 12) had apprehended that if the C.B.I, investigated 
the case, even himself and other I.U.M.L. leaders might be put behind 
the bars. The witness complained that though the State Government had 
reached an agreement with the Hindu organizations for the peaceful 
rehabilitation of the displaced Muslim families, the Government 
backtracked from its commitment: Ext.XS is the report dated 19-1-2004 
placed by the Chief Minister in the State Assembly, which contained the 
terms of the agreement. The witness produced Ext.X6, the article 
published by Justice V.R. Krishna lyyer, in the 'Hindu' to buttress his 
contention that the massacre on 2-5-2003 was not a retaliation by the 
relatives of Aboobacker. Instead, that was ,an attempt of the Muslim 
fundamentalists /terrorists to eliminate the Hindus from the coastal 
areas and monopolize that area. 

9. The A parties examined few journalists. They are AW8 , Special 
Correspondent of the 'Hindu', Kozhiokode , Aw9, Bureau Chief of 
'Malayala Manorama', Kozhikode, AWIO, Bureau in-charge of 
'Varthamanam', Kozhikode, AWll, Bureau Chief of 'Desabhimani', 
Kozhikode,, AW13, Bureau Chief of 'Kerala Kaumudi, Kozhikode (a 
resident of Naduvattom, near Marad) and AW14, Bureau Chief of 
'Madhyamam', Kozhikode . They proved various reports in their 
respective newspapers regarding the massacre on 2-5-2003 and the , 
forces behind that. They claimed to have conducted on the spot study 
and collected information from their sources in the police following the 
massacre on 2-5-2003. They were of the view that the attack on 2-5- 



37 



2003 was in ,the form of terrorist attack, not directed against any 
particular individual but, directed against the Hindu community, killing 
any member of that community found by the assailants just as being 
done by the terrorists on unarmed victims of Jammu Kashmir. They 
suspected the N.D.F. behind the massacre. Those reports carried 
statements allegedly given by the Crime Branch Investigation Team 
including Sri. Mahesh Kumar Singla, who was supervising the 
investigation. Ext.X9 is the report produced by AW8. Ext.X9 is the 
report that the statement of AW3S, Sri. Mahesh Kumar Singla indicated 
the role of the N.D.F. behind the massacre. Ext.A54 (a) is the report in 
'Desabhimani' dated 16-6-2003 about AW3S disclosing that formed 
office bearers of N.D.F. had role in the massacre. Ext.A35 (a) is the 
reported statement of AW3S in the 'Malayala Manorama' dated 28-5- 
2003 that the massacre was not merely a revenge for the incidents on 
3/4-1-2002. Ext.A24. (a) and A36 (a) are reports in the 'Malayala 
Manorma' that the group from Tanur had planned the massacre and that 
the C.B.C.I.D revealed that the said group had links with the N.D.F. It 
is further stated that Aboobacker, killed on 4-1-2002, was an N.D.F. 
activist. Ext. A3 8 (a) is the report in 'Varthamanam' daily dated 11-5- 
2003 that police circles indicated the role of N.D.F. in the massacre. 
Ext.A46 (a) is the report dated 11-5-2003 in the 'Desabhimani' about 
police circles indicating the role of N.D.F. in the incident. Ext.A66 (b), 
the report in the , 'Kerala Kaumudi' dated 4-5-2003 was that the attack 
on Hindus at Marad Beach on 2-5-2003 was in 'guerilla style'. 
According to AW13, the massacre was carried out with a professional 
touch. Ext.A26(a) is the report in 'Madhymam' that FW6 indicated that 
the attack was in 'guerilla style and that assailants used bombs as 
generally used by the terrorists. The B party No. 2 (NDF) produced Ext. 
B43(a) report in 'Hindu' dated 31-7-2003 that Sri. Mahesh Kumar singla 



38 



had ruled oat the involvement of outside elements in the incident- He 
had also claimed that no political party or organization had role in the 
conspiracy. 

10. AW 12 was the Industries Minister, Kerala during the relevant time. 
Ext.A6 is a report based on his Press conference at Thiruvananthapuram 
on 6-5-2003. He is reported to have stated that certain dark forces which 
wanted to communalize the State are behind the massacre on 2-5-2003 
and that there must be an impartial investigation into that matter. The 
witness claimed that he might have said so, but did not mean anybody in 
particular. Ext.A63(a) is the report in 'Chandrika' (the mouthpiece of 
the I.U.M.L.) dated 24-5-2003. That report is based on the statement of 
the witness that the massacre was the result of a small section of the 
Muslim community which tried to , unleash terror for gain. The witness 
' claimed that he might have stated so. AW 15, the State Secretary of 
the C.P.I.(M) referred to the history of communal, clashes in the State 
during various period and claimed that during 1991-1996 when the 
U.D.F. was in power, 40 persons lost lives in communal clashes. After 
the U.D.F. came to power in 2001, 18 persons lost their lives. He 
claimed that it was because the U.D.F. Government was appeasing the 
fundamentalists for political gain. The witness was definite in his 
opinion that 1 fundamentalists are operating among the Muslim 
community in the State and that the N.D.F. is the major Muslim 
terrorist organization functioning in Kerala. He believed that the . 
N.D.F. is behind the massacre on 2-5-2003. Ext.A77 is a report in the 
'Malayala Manorama' dated 22-11-1997 to the effect that the 
Kozhikode District Committee of the C.PI.(M.) alleged in a resolution 
that in many parts of Kozhikode District; Muslim/Christian 
fundamentalists are spreading their roots and that Muslim 
fundamentalist organizations like the N.D.F. are trying to gain influence 



39 



among the youngsters. ; The witness claimed that the N.D.F. men killed 
Binu, a C.PI.(M) worker of Nadapuram. The witness also referred to 
certain other instances of the N.D.F. activists killing C.PI.(M) activists. 
He claimed that the mode of attack in all these places as 'well as at 
Marad Beach was the same - sudden attack on unsuspecting adversaries 
and killing them. The witness ' was of the opinion that the massacre on 
2-5-2003 was not the result of the retaliation by an individual or group 
of individuals pained at the killing of anybody. Instead, a trained group 
was behind the massacre. AW 17 was residing at Vellayil Beach till 
about 4 months before 2-5-2003. He is a fisherman by occupation and 
claimed that at about 7-8 P M. on 2-5-2003, while himself and 
colleagues were returning to the Beypore harbour, they were attacked by 
a group of Muslims who came in country boats fitted with Yamaha 
engines. Those persons carried weapons such as swords and explosives. 
Explosives were thrown at AW17 and others. One fell in the country 
boat in which AW 17 was sailing and it resulted in loss of vision of his 
left eye. The A parties examined AW 17 to show that a group of 
assailants had escaped through the sea immediately after the massacre 
and in the course of that, attacked AW 17 and others. 

11. BW6, professor in the English department, Calicut University had 
occasion to conduct study about the communal violence. He claimed 
that the massacre (2-5-2003) was initiated by the Muslim 
fundamentalists. 

12. AW27, the A.S.I, who was engaged in intelligence work in Marad 
beach claimed that Aboobacker was running a 'Kalari' and hence, he 
was called 'Usthad' He learnt that N.D.F. had its activities at Marad 
Beach. He had reported on the activities of N.D.F. workers at Marad. 



40 



Ashraf, accused in crime No. 62/98 of Kasaba Police station and 
involved in the Coimbatore bomb blast case was an N.D.F. worker. 

13. Ext. C22 contained the letter dt. 24-1-2003 sent by AW29 to . 
AW32, that Bijili was found active among the Muslim fundamentalists 
(NDF/PDP) in Marad Beach and that he is being instigated by those 
elements for retaliation on the Hindus. I referred to Ext.C 18, the report 
of the year, 1998 and prepared by the special squad formed as per the 
direction of CWl and which' studied the activities of fundamentalist / 
terrorist elements. In Ext.C 18, it is asserted that Aboobacker was an 
N.D.F. activist. Though, B party No. 2 (N.D.F ) has a case that 
Aboobacker was a C.PI.(M.) activist, that is not supported by any 
evidence. 

14. BWS 9 and 10 are accused in Crime No. 129/ 96 of Meppayur police 
station. Though they admitted that they are NDF activists, denied that 
they are involved in the said case. They have not given any statements 
like Exts. C58 and C59: They are falsely implicated in the case. B WS 
11 and 12 are accused in Crime No. 1039/ 03 of Kannur Town Police 
Station and denied involvement in that incident. They have not given 
any statement like Exts C. 73 and 74. They admitted that they are NDF 
activists. BWS 13 to 15 are accused in Crime No. 220/ 04 of Chalissery 
Police Station and denied giving any statement like Ext.C91 series. 
They claimed that they are falsely implicated in the case. They admitted 
that they are NDF activists. BWS 19 to 21 referred in Ext. C18 denied 
any such activity as attributed to them in Ext. C. 18. They claimed that 
.they have no connection with the NDF. BW23 claimed that he has not 
given any statement like Ext. C 54, to CW.34 (in Crime No. 62/98 of 
Kasaba Police Station). BW 23, the first secretary of Green Valley 
Foundation and member of the Supreme Council of the NDF and 



41 



presently the Chairman of that Organization denied that there , was any 
such explosion in the Green Valley Foundation compound while testing 
the timer device on 9-7-2001. He claimed that the enemies of the NDF 
had planted country bombs in its compound which exploded. When he 
learned that the investigation is turning against the NDF, he preferred 
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram. The witness 
claimed that all the persons referred in Ext. C 18 are not NDF activists. 
He gave a list of NDF activists from among the persons referred in Ext. 
C 18. B W 28., detained in the Central Prison, Coimbatore in connection 
with the bomb blast case denied any connection with Ooma Babu, 
harbouring him or giving any statement like Ext. C51. He was an NDF 
activist attached to its Payyanakkal Unit. He was expelled from that 
Organization following his arrest in Crime No. 62/98. He admitted that 
Ext. C 100 is the photocopy of his diary seized by the police from his 
house but, claimed that he was compelled to make certain entries in Ext. 
C.IOO. BW 29 also denied any connection with any Al-Umma or NDF 
leader and denied harbouring Ooma Babu. He has not given any 
statement like Ext.C49 series. It is not true that he was sent to Pakistan 
for ISI training. He went to Bankok for job and unable to trace the 
agency which was to provide the job, returned. He admitted that his 
flight ticket, luggage coupon and immigration clearance certificate etc. 
were seized by the police. BW 30, Abdul Nazar Madani, detained in the 
Central Prison, Coimbatore in , connection with the bomb blast case, 
denied the statements in Exts. C44 series. He had not sent anybody to 
Pakistan for ISI . training. He admitted that Muhammed Nafi (A. 104), 
accused in Crime No. 82/03 of Beypore Police Station had met him, 
several times (before the massacre on 2-5-2003) but, that was in 
connection with the appointment of Muhammed Nafi as 'Editor of 
National Review' . 



42 



15. The B Party No. 2 . (N.D.F ) has a case that it is a socio-cultural or 
charitable organization engaged in human rights protection and the 
uplift of the downtrodden particularly, the backward classes: Chairman 
of its Supreme Council and presently member of that Council gave 
evidence as B- He claimed that N.D.F. is a socio-cultural, charitable 
organization formed in November, 1993 to fight fascism which was 
intended at eliminating the Muslims from the Country. The objective of 
the N.D.F. is to presume secularism. The N.D.F. is a society registered 
under the Societies Registration Act. Ext.B99 is its bye-law. Ext.B 100 
to B 107 are produced to show that N.D.F. has been striving to protect 
human rights interest of the backward classes and to preserve 
secularism. It is revealed from Exts. B 100 to B 107 that the N.D.F. 
organized several meetings and conducted agitations with that objective. 
The witness claimed that N.D.F. had no involvement in any incident at 
Marad Beach or elsewhere in the State and none of its leaders workers 
are accused in the cases relating to the incidents at Marad. On the other 
hand, Arayasamajam was under the control of the R.S.S. since the last 
15-20 years. The witness proved Ext.B9 (a) and Ext.B 16(a) to show 
that these facts are admitted by AW6 himself. According to BWS, 
motive for the massacre on 2-5-2003 was the revenge for , the killing of 
Muslims on 3/4-1-2002. He alleged that Aboobacker was ' killed in the 
presence of the Police. Aboobacker was very popular in the area and 
was loved by everybody. His relatives and associates retaliated, which 
resulted in the massacre on 2-5-2003. He denied that Aboobacker or his 
son Bijili were members of the N.D.F. and claimed that the 
Organization had no unit even, at Marad Beach. The R.S.S. men 
collected and stockpiled weapons at Marad Beach. That enabled the 
Hindus to come with arms against the Police immediately after the 
incident on 2-5-2003. The witness alleged that after the massacre on 2- 



43 



5-2003, Marad Beach was under the control of B.J.P /R.S.S. activists 
and that even the Chief Minister had to seek their permission to visit the 
place. Regarding Subair (BW 28) who is accused in Crime No. 62/98 of 
Kasaba police station and involved in the Coimbatore Bomb Blast, the 
witness claimed that he was an N.D.F. activist at the time of the bomb 
blast but, he was expelled from the Organization after that incident. 
BWS claimed that a legal aid cell was formed under the leadership of 
the N.D.F to give legal aid to some of the accused in the Coimbatore 
bomb blast case. Legal aid was given to them as part of its human rights 
activity. He admitted that he was a member of SIMI during his student 
days. The membership in that Organization was up to age of 30 years. 
Though SIMI was banned in the year 2001, the witness did not know the 
reason for that. In cross-examination by the A parties, the witness 
admitted that some local leaders of N.D.F are accused in the case for the 
murder of Binu at Nadapuram. The Division Convener and Division 
Joint Convenor, Vatakara and State Council Member of the N.D.F. are 
accused in that case. The witness admitted that he is presently the 
Chairman of the Green Valley Foundation Trust, Manjeri but claimed 
that the Trust has no connection with the N.D.F. It's former chairman 
was a member of the N.D.F. Supreme council. None other than the 
N.D.F. men were ever chairman of the Trust He admitted that there was 
a blast in the Green Valley Foundation Trust compound during the night 
in 2001 and claimed that the blast occurred 3/4 km. away from the 
office of the Trust. The Manjeri police had registered a case, but he 
does not know its present stage. He does not know whether the 
explosion occurred when the explosive unit (of the NDF) was testing a 
timer device. He does not also know whether the scientific expert had 
visit the spot. Enemies of the . N.D.F planted bombs which exploded. 
Ext. A96 is the photocopy of the charge sheet in crime No. 257/96 of 



44 



Perambra police station against N.D.F. men for allegedly attacking a 
scheduled caste for marrying a Muslim girl. The witness claimed that 
the N.D.F. men were falsely implicated in that case: The witness denied 
that N.D.F. is involved in any fundamentalist/terrorist activities in the 
State. Bw24, Chairman of the supreme council of N.D.F. and the first 
Secretary of the Green Valley Foundation denied that the explosion 
occurred in the compound of that Organization on 9.7.2001, when the 
timer devise was tested. 

16. Question arose whether, fundamentalist/terrorist elements are 
operating in this State. Going by the evidence of AW12 and Exts. A6 
and A63(a) which AW12 himself did not deny, certain 'dark forces' 
which wanted to communalise the Kerala society is working among the 
Muslim community in the State. AWIS who was a Minister and 
Legislator in . Kerala for long and a senior political leader, has stated 
that there are Muslim fundamentalists working in the State (I am not 
confining the fundamentalism, or terrorism to any community - evidence 
before the Commission refers to such fundamentalist activities from 
other communities / religions as well. Ext. A77 is the resolution of the 
District committee of his party appearing ' in the Press on 22-11-1997 
about activities of the Muslim/Christian fundamentalists in this State). I 
referred to the evidence of CWs. 1 and 3, Aw24 (police officers), Ext.C 
18 and other documents to show that there is fundamentalist /terrorist 
activities in the State. Ext.C 18 gives detailed information about that. 
Ext.C68 to C71 and the evidence of Cw37 prima facie shows that certain 
elements set fire to the bus belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Road 
Transport Corporation, at Kozhikode on 29-12-02. Ext.C39 to C41 and 
the evidence of CW33 shows that about 100 Pipe bombs were seized 
from Koomankallu in Vengara PS limits in Malappuram Dt on 31-12- 
1995. The statement of the 1st accused in that case (Ext. C40, C40(a) 



45 



prima facie revealed that he was associated with the SIMI until the age 
of 30 years and was trained by Imam Ali (involved in Coimbatore Bomb 
blast case), leader of Al-Umma (who himself got training in POK) to ' 
make country bombs for fundamentalist / terrorist activities and that for 
the , said purpose, Imam Ali even stayed in Kerala for sometime. Exts. 
C40 and C41 state that Imam Ali had got training in POK. Exts. A 88 
and A89 series prima facie, show that several tube bombs were seized 
from Kadalundi river, in Malappuram district during January, 1996, and 
that a three member gang engaged in setting fire to the theatres in 
Malppuram district exhibiting its photographs in the Gulf countries and 
collecting large sum of money were arrested by the Police. Ext. C40 
prima facie shows that BW29 (Ashraf, accused in CR. 62 / 98 of Kasaba 
PS) had told about the Muslims of India and Kashmir suffering at the 
hands of the Hindus, 'his being sent to Pakistan for training under the 
ISI, his going upto Bankok and unable to go to Pakistan, returning. Ext. 
C51 prima facie, refers to certain Organizations in the State receiving 
tube money for its activities. Ext.C 14 is the record in Cr. No.246/CR. 
KNRI/ 99 of CBCID, Kannur. That case was registered against certain 
Muslim fundamentalists for attempt on the life of the then State Chief 
Minister (late), Sri. E.K.Nayanar, EWl, the District. Collector, 
Kozhikode during the time of massacre states that he had issued 
direction to the police to closely watch and take action against 
organizations and persons indulging in fundamentalist activities - in 
Kozhikode district. Evidence of AWs7 and 21 refer to the bomb blast in 
the Thrissur Railway Station. As pointed out by Cw3, there is no reason 
to think that the terrorist fundamentalist operation in other parts of the 
Country had not crossed into the territory of Kerala State. Going by the 
manner in which the successive Government ^acted and the police 
investigated the cases, there is no reason to think that the State was able 



46 



to keep such terrorist/fundamentalist activists beyond its territorial 
limits. It will be a folly to think so. It is seen from Ext.A84(a), A85(a) 
and A86 (a) that Vice Admiral Sureesh Mehta of the Indian Navy had 
stated in a Press conference that the .proposed Beypore Cost Guard will 
plug the entry points in Malabar region for sneaking in weapons and 
explosives by the terrorists, Kozhikode was the hub of such activities, 
earlier, it was drug trafficking and now; ammunities are also being 
smuggled in. The same report has come in all the leading dailies of the 
State on 16-7-2004. Hence, prima facie, there is no reason to discard it. 
This statement of Vice , Admiral Sureesh Mehta corroborates the 
evidence of CWs. 1 and 3, the findings in Ext. CIS and the report in 
Ext.C22. I do not forget that the witnesses examined by B Party No. 2 
and 3 and who are mentioned ' in Ext. CIS denied the allegations 
against them. But, 1 do not expect them to admit all those. From the 
oral and documentary evidence placed before the Commission, it is only 
reasonable to think that such fundamentalist/ terrorist activities are 
being carried on in Kerala as well. 

17. The immediate question for consideration then is, whether external/ 
internal forces are behind the massacre on 2-5-2003 ? I stated that the 
crime Branch (CID.) Unit Investigated the case relating to the massacre 
on 2-5-2003 and filed charge sheet (Ext.C9), about the claim of the B 
party No. 2 that the massacre was the result of retaliation while the A 
parties claimed that it was an operation by the N.D.F. and other 
fundamentalist terrorist elements. Though, B party No. 2 has a case that 
Aboobacker who was killed on 4-1-2002 was a CPI (M) activist, B W5 
admitted that they stated so, only on hearsay information. BWs 2 and 3 
denied that Aboobacker was a CPI(M) activist. AW4, AW24 and CW3 
have given evidence that Aboobacker was an NDF activist. AW24 says 
that the name of Aboobacker was included in the list of NDF activists 



47 



maintained in the Beypore PS. This version is corroborated by Ext. C 
18. In Ext. C 18, Aboobacker is shown as an NDF activist. There is no 
reason why in the year 1998, a false entry was made regarding the 
organizational connection of . Aboobacker. It is pertinent to remember 
that even BW5 admitted that some of the persons shown in Ext. C 18 are 
NDF activists. Going by the evidence of B Ws 9 to 15 who are 
admittedly NDF activists examined by the B party No. 2, documentary 
or other direct evidence about membership in the NDF is quite 
impossible. For even according to them, though they are NDF activists, 
there is no document to prove that . Only the Notebook maintained by 
the Area Convenor would show who are the members of the NDF unit. I 
do not expect that Notebook to come before the Commission. On a 
consideration of the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to 
discard the evidence of AW4, 24 and CW3 that Aboobacker was an NDF 
activist. From Ext.X2, the report placed by the Chief Minister in the 
State Assembly' on 22-7-2003, it is seen that 11 of the accused in Crime 
No. 82/03 of Beypore Police station Cr.li6/Cr/03 of C.B.C.l.D) are 
N.D.F activists while 9 others are N.D.F. activists working in the 
I.U.M.L. and the C.P.I.(M). In Ext.X2, Bijili, one of the main accused 
in Cr.82/03 of Beypore Ps (Cr.l 16/CR/03 of CBCID) is shown as an 
NDF/I.U.M.L. activist. I referred to the evidence of AW26 and CW3 
that the N.D.F. infiltrated into other Political parties (except the B.J.P) 
and acted under its banner to conceal their activities. I also referred to 
the evidence of AW 4, supported by Ext. A15(a) about the Press 
Conference of some of the ' N.D.F. leaders that the N.D.F. men are 
workina in all Political parties except the B.J.P. BW5 has admitted that 
there is no prohibition in the N.D.F. men working in any political party 
provided, the ' ideology of that party was not against the ideology of the 
N.D.F. It is revealed from Ext. C49 series and the evidence of that 



48 



BW29 V who was admitted by an N.D.F. activist was working in the 
PDP also. Therefore, the official version stated in Ext. X2 that 9 
accused are N.D.F. men workina under the label of I.U.M.L. and 
C.PI..M.(M) can be accepted. The statement in Ext. X2 about 
involvement from N.D.F. activists in the massacre on 2-5-2003 gets 
corroboration to Exts.Sl to S3, the copy of confession statements of A2, 
A97 and A98 in Cr. No. 82/03 'of Beypore P.S. There, they claimed that 
they 'were' N.D.F. activists as if, their connection with the N.D.F. was 
prior to the massacre on 2-5-2003. But, none of them said how they 
ceased to be members of the N.D.F. None of them said that ' they joined 
any other organization after leaving the N.D.F. It is true that there is no 
documentary evidence to show that any of the accused in Cr. 82/03 of 
Beypore Police Station (Cr. 116/Cr/03 of C.B.C.I.D.) are N.D.F 
activists. It is also true that BWS, BW24 and Bw28 denied that any of 
those accused are N.D.F. activists According to them, N.D.F. did not 
even have a unit at Marad Beach. But, there is evidence to show that 
N.D.F was active at Marad Beach. AW3, AW4, AW6, AW24 AW2S, 
AW27, AW30, AW38, BW2, BW4 and CW3 . have given evidence 
about the activities of N.D.F. activists at Marad Beach. The letter dt. 
24-1-2003 sent by AW29 to AW32 (see Ext. C22) also referred to the 
activities of the NDF at Marad Beach. Ext. C51 shows that the NDF was 
active at Marad Beach, giving training to its cadres in the use of fire 
arms. It is revealed prima facie, from Ext. C49 series, statement of 
8W30 and Ext. SI, statement: of A2 (Sakeer) in Cr. 82/03 of Beypore PS 
(Cr.ll6/CR/03 of CBCID) which I find no reason to discard, that the 
N.D.F. had .a unit which covered . Marad Beach. BW28 admitted that he 
was an N.D.F. activist. He belonged to Payyanakkal which is very near 
Marad Beach. He was an N.D.F. activist of Payyanakkal unit. He would 
say that there is an N.D.F. unit at Chakkumkadavu, about 1/2 K.M. 



49 



away from Payyanakkal. There is no territorial limitations while 
working in one unit of the N.D.F. If that be so even if there was no 
separate unit for the N.D.F. at Marad Beach proper, there was nothing 
wrong or unusual in that Organization having its activists in Marad 
Beach also permitted. I have referred to the various press reports 
referring to the presence of NDF at Marad Beach and their involvement 
in the massacre, which in the light of the other evidence on record, can 
safely be accepted. Even going by the version some of the witnesses 
examined by B party No. 2 who are admittedly N.D.F. activists, 
collection of documentary or other direct evidence regarding their 
membership in the N.D.F is not possible for. BWs 9 to 11 and BWs.13 to 
15 who are admittedly N.D.F. activists of different units at different 
places and districts would say that there are no membership cards or 
receipts issued to them from their organization. Their respective Unit 
Convenors maintained a notebook where, the name of the members is 
written: No other document will show that they are N.D.F. activists. 
Similar evidence is given by B W5, leader of the N.D.F. If so, it is 
difficult to expect direct evidence whether, somebody is an NDF activist 
or whether, the N.D.F. has a unit at a particular place. I am not 
impressed in the facts, circumstances and evidence, by the version of 
A2, 97 and A98 in Ext. S 1 to S3 that they were N.D.F. activists. BW28 
was admittedly an N.D.F. activist. He says that he was 'expelled' from 
the N.D.F. But, there was no official communication, oral or written to 
him regarding that. He learnt about his expulsion from the news papers. 
Ext. x8 is the news paper about the News Conference of Dr. M.K. 
Muneer, minister in the state cabinet. He is reported to have stated that 
the NDF is an amoebic body. This version is justified by the statement 
of BW 14 that he does not know who is the leader of NDF. next to the 
area convener. BW28 at a time when he was admittedly an NDF 



50 



activist, wrote in his diary. (Ext. C 100) that he met chief. It is true that 
BW28 has a case that he was, under threat from CW34 made to make 
that entry. But prima facie, there is no reason to think so. When asked 
to say who was that 'Chief, BW2B said that 'Chief meant 'leader'. He 
does not know anything else. The statement of A2, A97, and A98 in 
Ext.S 1 to S3 that they 'were' N.D.F. activists was certainly an attempt 
made by them to make it appear that they 'were' not N:D.F. activists at 
the time of massacre on 2-5-2003. Being the cadres of a disciplined 
organization, it is quite natural that they tried to disassociate themselves 
from their oraanization. 

18. 1 stated from the evidence of BWl, the socio economic and 
educational background of the people of Marad. Evidence revealed that 
the average education of the accused in Crime No. 82/03 is 5 standard. 
They are all fishermen. It is difficult to think that those accused who are 
all fishermen placed in such poor situation were able to raise the 
enormous funds required for the planning, operating and carrying out 
the massacre and were able to do that so meticulously, even surpassing 
the Intelligence Wings. This fact is not concealed by the higher police 
authorities as well. The statement of Fw6, Sri. T.K. Vinod Kumar, 
Commissioner of Police during the relevant time that the attack was in 
'guerilla style' (see Ext.A26 (a) is a definite indication that there was 
some other agency behind the massacre, than the accused booked by 
the Crime Branch. This is the indication given by AW12 the then 
Industries Minister also when he claimed that certain 'dark forces' 
which wanted the State to be on communal turmoil was behind the 
massacre. Evidence revealed that there was a long drawn conspiracy 
and that the massacre was meticulously carried out. The large 
collection of weapons including country bombs shows that the attempt 
of the assailants was not merely to kill certain persons. They wanted to 



51 



create still bigger havoc. Certainly, the attempt was to ignite large scale 
riot. AW 21, the then Director General of Police, was not prepared to 
believe that the massacre .was the result of the revenge of certain 
persons FW 6, the Commissioner says that Radical Muslims are 
involved in the massacre. The nature of the attack - armed groups 
emerging from different sides and unleashing a sudden attack - revealed 
that the attempt was to kill as many persons (from the Hindu 
community) as possible within the shortest time and escape. Evidence 
of AW17 shows that infact, a group of assailants or who had stood 
behind for lending assistanceto the assailants, did escape through the 
Sea after the massacre. The escape of some ' of the assailants failed 
only because they were held up in the Marad Juma Masjid and the police 
party reached the spot immediately after the incident. 

19. At this stage; I may refer to the investigation conducted by the 
Crime Branch which of course, came to the conclusion ' that the 
massacre was the result of revenge on account of the killings of .3/4 -1- 
202. I refer to the evidence of AW19. Going by his evidence, the 
question whether other forces (ie., forces behind the accused) were 
involved in the massacre was not even an issue for the Crime Branch 
team. He claimed in unambiguous terms that there was no direction - 
oral or written from AW 35 (Sri. Maheshkumar Singla) to investigate 
into the involvement of other forces behind the massacre. The stand of 
AW 19 is that the Crime Branch Team did not get evidence of 
involvement of other forces and hence, they did not investigate that. I 
am unable to understand how, the Crime Branch could wait for evidence 
to come to them, to conduct investigation. I was under the impression 
that the police should investigate and collect evidence, rather than 
waiting for evidence to come to the police for investigating. Putting the 
horse behind the cart and then blaming it for not pulling the cart! 



52 



AW3S, the Inspector General who was supervising the investigation was 
directed by this Commission to file affidavit whether he had issued any 
direction verbally or in writing, to investigate into the involvement of 
other forces in the massacre. I find from his affidavit that he was 
reluctant to make warned that unless ' he filed proper affidavit in the 
matter, he will face the consequence for that. Then, he came with an 
affidavit dated 16-11-2004 where, in para 4, he claimed (as against the 
assertion of AW 19 ) that he had given verbal instruction to investigate 
into the involvement of other forces to the limited extent of the 
information that some of the accused 'were' sympathisers of the 
N.D.F./ I.U.M.L./C.PI.(M) etc. Inspite of the fact that going by the 
evidence of DW 1, the State Government had given full freedom to the 
Crime Branch Investigation Team to probe in to all aspect (ie., 
including the involvement of other forces) if any behind the massacre, 
they did not investigate into that aspect. Evidence of AW 19 shows that 
the CBCID had not even investigated on the information contained in 
Exts. S 1 to S5. They had no idea about the Organizational connection 
of Aboobacker, killed on 4-1-2002. Why was the Crime Branch Team 
particular in not probing into the alleged involvement of the other 
forces? The A parties have a case that investigation in that line was 
sabottaged by AW 35 (I will refer to that aspect in the latest chapter) it 
is a fact that the Cribe Branch had not investigated into the invovement 
of other forces behing the incident. Inspite of the various intelligence 
reports, referring to the alleged involment of fundamentalists/terrorists 
elements in the incident, AW35 had no difficulty to say that he had not 
seen any such Intelligence Reports (at least for guidence in the course 
of investigation ) he claimed that he was unaware of such reports. He 
was one of the respondents in the Writ Pretition filed by the mother of 
one of the victims of the massacre (on 2-5-2003) in the Hon'ble High 



53 



court for direction for C.B.I. Investigation. In that case, the Additional 
Home Secretary. Smt. Sobhanakumari filed counter affidavit stating 
that the Intelligence Wing had collected some information regarding the 
possible violence at Marad and the same was conveyed to the local 
Police. Ext.C 19 contained that counter affidavit. AW3S was present in 
the Hon'ble High court in connection with that case and even explained 
certain matters to the hon'ble Judges. Still, Aw35 claimed that he was 
'unaware' of the statement in the counter affidavit of the Additional 
Home Secretary. Quite unbelievable, the statement made by a senior 
Police officer like the Inspector General! On the other hand, evidence of 
AW30 is that the Crime Branch officials who investigated the case had 
interacted with the S.S.B and that the Intelligence Wing had disclosed 
all details to them. AW 19 claimed that he tried through AW3S to get 
the Intelligence Reports, Aw35 had asked for those reports but, did not 
get it . It that be so, Aw35 was simply speaking untruth before the 
Commission that he was v 'unaware' of the Intelligence Reports. Nor 
am I inclined to think that inspite of AW19 trying to get the Intelligence 
Reports, he did not get it. AW19 and AW3S wanted to avoid questions 
based on the Intelligence Reports regarding the involvement of 
fundamentalists/ terrorists in the incident and even the organizational 
connection of Aboobacker and Kunhikoya killed, in the riot on 3/4-1- 
2002. 

20. I asked AW 19 whether, he felt anything particular in the statement 
of the accused referred in Exts.S 1 to S 3 that they 'were' N.D.F. 
activists. The witness stated that - he did not feel anything particular 
about that. Quite surprising that a Senior Officer like AW 19 
investigating such a massacre (which, in the normal course could not 
have been planned and executed by few under educated and poor 
fishermen alone) was not alerted by that statement of the accused in 



54 



Exts.Sl to S3. Any way, even according to AW19, no further 
investigation was made on the said statements in Exts.S 1 . to S3. AW 
19 and AW3S were asked whether A105, Mohammed Nafi had met 
Abdul Nazar Madani (BW30) in the Coimbatore Central Prison, eight 
(8) times before the massacre on 2-5-2003. They claimed that their 
investigation revealed that A 105 had met Abdul Nazar Madani (Bw 30) 
only 2 or 3 times. The Investigation Team was generous enough to 
simply believe that statement of A 105 (Nafi) without even cross 
checking with, the Jail Register. AW 19 and AW3S Visitors were 
confronted with the extract of the Jail Register and its English 
translation sent by the Supdt. of that Prison, and the statement therein, 
that A105 (Nafi) had visited Madani (BW30) in , the Prison, eight times 
before the massacre on 2-5-2003. Awl9 was sure that if A105 had 
visited Madani eight (8) times, there would be suspicious in that . Then 
AW 19 stated that a something conspiracy in the visitors room of 
Coimbatore Central Prison was not possible since the Visitors will be 
permitted to have interview with the prisoners only in the presence of 
the Jail authorities. At this stage, 1 have to refer to the evidence of 
Abdul Nazar Madani (BW30). He stated that A 105 met him in the 
Central Prison, Coimbatore several times but, in connection with the 
appointment of A 105 as the editor of 'National Review' a Magazine run 
by him from Ernakulam and its management. Whether that version of 
A. 105 and BW 30 was true, was required to be probed. Fact remained 
that going by Ext.S4, Mohammed Nafi (A105) had also met BW29 
(A.T.Mohammed Ashraf ) in the same Prison who, going by Ext.C 49 
series and evidence of CW34 was the unit leader of the N.D.F. during 
the said time and who, evidence prima facie revealed, was sent to 
Pakistan for l.S.l. training and for the said purpose, went up to Bankok 
but, had to return. Prima facie, those meetings with BW29 was not that 



55 



much innocent. It is stated in Ext.C43 to C51 and evidence of CW34 
that BW2B and 29 had connection with some of the Al-Uma leaders 
(B29 was concededly an N.D.F. activist and allegedly expelled from that 
organization in 1998). Ext. C51 and the evidence of CW34 is to the 
effect that N.D.F. had connection with the Al-Uma and that N.D.F was 
collecting foreign funds. AW 19 or AW3S had not even gone through 
the records of Cr. 62/98 of Kasaba P S. to ascertain the above facts. 
They were not even aware of that case. Fact remained that the Crime 
Branch Investigation Team did not properly question A 105. (The 
extract of Jail register and its English translation are not separately 
marked in evidence. Hence it is appended to Ext. S4). 

21. It is revealed from the evidence that A94 (Latheef) in Crime 
No. 82/03 of Beypore Police Station (Cr. 116/03 of C.B.C.I.D.) who is 
one of the prime conspirators of the massacre on 2-5-2003 was a close 
associate of BW29 (Ashraf). As per the , Crime Branch Investigation, 
A94 had assisted the other accused in making country bombs (which 
were meant , to be used for the massacre but, fortunately not used). 
Exts. S 1 to S3 show that A94-Latheef also is an NDF activist. A94 
allegedly surrendered in court after the Crime Branch filed the 
chargesheet in Crime No. 82/03 on 31-7-2003. The crime Branch Team 
had no occasion to question A94 regarding his connection with Bw28, 
29 or any other fundamentalist elements. I referred to the evidence of 
CW34 and ' Exts.C43 and C46 to 49 series which prima facie revealed 
that Ashraf (BW29) was sent to Pakistan for training and for the 
purpose , he , had travelled from Trivandrum to Bankok but unable to 
get US dollars at Bankok, had to drop the plan and return. Going by 
ext.ClOO, BW2B had met chief in relation to the expansion of 
Coimbatore' etc. These aspects were not investigated, not , even 
attempted by the Crime B ranch. AW19 admitted that the CBCID had no 



56 



occassion to uestion some of the accused who surrendered in Court after 
the filing of the chargesheet. On the question whether, he could deny 
that those accused had terrorist link, AW19 said that he did not get 
evidence. I asked AW 19 and Aw35 why, even if they were not able to 
question A94 as he surrendered in Court after the Crime Branch Team 
filed the chargesheet, they did not seek the permission of Court to 
question A94 and if necessary, further investigate. If the crime Branch 
were sincere enough to investigate into the involvement of other forces, 
it could and should have sought the permission of the concerned Court, 
questioned A94 who was then in judicial custody and if necessary, 
investigated the matter further with the permission of Court as provided 
u/s. 173 (8 Cr. P.C. AW3S absolved himself claiming that it was the 
responsibility of the Investigating Officer. AW 19, who headed the 
investigation tried to escape saying that since the involvement of A94 in 
the incident (ie. conspiracy and making , bombs) was revealed from 
other accused and witnesses, it was not necessary to question A94. How 
generous the Crime Branch Team was? Goin; by the evidence of CW28, 
Dy.S.P who was a member of the Crime Branch team, the Collection of 
funds for the massacre started even several months before the incident. 
But, according to AW3S, only small amount was required in the planing 
and execution of, the massacre. But, AW3S forgot that even after the 
massacre, enormous money is needed to conduct the case, maintain the 
family of the accused and such other matters. Evidence revealed that 
there was no second investigation into the source of the funds (Govt, 
may refer to the report in the documents marker initially as Ext. C I 9 
that a person called "FM" raised the funds for the massacre, he came 
from Dubai to Kozhikode on 2-5-2003 - and returned few days after the 
massacre) CW 28 was of the opinion that A94 had to be interrogated and 
had conveyed that opinion to the 'superiors. But AW19 and AW3S did 



57 



not consider that as necessary. Evidence revealed that the Crime Branch 
did not also investigate into the source of the large number of weapons. 
At the end, AW 19 also confessed that the Crime Branch investigation 
was limited to the involvement of the , accused booked by them which 
in other words, meant that the Crime Branch did not investigate into the 
involvement of other forces behind the massacre. It is revealed from the 
evidence of AW 17 that a group of persons who in all probability had 
taken part in the massacre or, involved in it in some way escaped 
through the sea in country boats. The CBCID investigation was not 
directed against that group. Thus, the conclusion arrived by the Crime 
Branch is no answer to the issue regarding the involvement of other 
forces behind the massacre. 

22. I found from the evidence that the N.D:F was active at Marad 
Beach at least after the communal riot on 314 -1-2002, was giving 
physical training for its cadres and further, that some of the accused in 
crime No. 82/ 03 are N.D.F. activists. I also referred to the oral and 
documentary evidence which revealed that Aboobacker" killed on 4-1- 
2002 'was an N.D.F activist. Though, the C.B.C.I.D' had arrayed 
altogether 148 accused in connection with the massacre on 2-5-2003, it 
is revealed from the official records (AW19 was not able to give specific 
reply in this regard) that of the said 148 accused, only seven (7) are 
close relatives of Aboobacker, eight (3) are related to Kunhikoya and 
three (3) are related Yunus who were killed on 3/4-1-2002. Even 
according to the CBCID (See Exits. C9, CIO), communal hatred towards 
the Hindus was one of the motives for the massacre. If thus, only 18 
persons among the 148 accused involved in the conspiracy and murder 
and among the 90 accused who actually took part in the murder were 
related to the three Muslims killed on 3/4-1-2002, what was the interest 
of the accused (other than those 18) to be involved in the planning and 



58 



execution of the massacre? What was the interest of those large number 
of accused who were neither related to Aboobacker, Kuiihikoya or 
Yunus, nor belonged to Marad Beach? Was it merely a revenge for the 
killing of the three persons, or was it merely Communal hatred arising 
from those killings? .It is difficult to believe so. It is revealed from the 
evidence that the assailants did not spare even persons aged 65 years. 
Few of the victims were aged 20 years. Some of the victims were 
chatting on the sandy beach while some others were engaged in other 
activities. . There was no provocation at all for the massacre. The 
assailants were not targeting any person or persons. Instead, they , 
emerged on the beach from different sides like bolt from the blue and 
attacked whichever Hindu they found, within the shortest possible time 
which left 8 Hindus dead and several others wounded. The surprise 
attack must have baffled the victims. The communal riot on 3/ 4-1-20 
2002 was not a one sided attack so that, for that reason alone, the entire 
Muslim Community rose up in arms against the Hindus. In that riot, two 
persons from the Hindu Community and three persons from the Muslim 
Community died. People from both sides suffered injuries and both side 
suffered property loss (See Ext. F48 series). So, it is 'difficult to 
understand the massacre on 2-5-2003 as an upsurge of the whole Muslim 
Community against the Hindu Community. It is pertinent to note that if 
the massacre on 2-5-2003 was in retaliation of the killing of Aboobacker 
4-1-2002, the assailants must have targeted any of the accused in the 
case for the murder of Aboobacker. Concededly, none of the 8 Hindus 
killed on 2-5-2003 are involved in any of the cases registered for the 
incidents related to the Communal riot on 3/4-1-2002. None of the 
injured in the incident on 2-5-2003 are accused in the case for the 
murder of Aboobacker. These circumstances indicated that the massacre 
on 2-5-2003 was not merely revenge for the killing of Aboobacker, 



59 



Kunhikoya or Yunus on 3/4-1-2002. Instead, that was an attack on the 
Hindus as anticipated and dictated by AW 29 in his letter dt. 24-1-2003 
(see Ext. C22) and addressed to AW32. At this stage, it is relevant to 
consider the evidence of AW21, the then Director General of Police 
regarding the very appointment of the then Asst. Commissioner (South), 
Kozhikode Sree Abdul Raheem (FW2). It is revealed from the evidence 
of FW2 that he had no special interest at being posted in Kozhikode 
District arid had not also requested for that posting. AW21 stated that 
after the massacre on 2-5-2003, he checked up and found that the 
posting of the Asst. Commissioner (South) FW2 at. Kozhikode was not 
as per the proposal made by him. He enquired and learnt that the posting 
of FW2 as Asst. Commissioner (South) was to oblige a Muslim leader. 
This, AW21 asserted in Ext. A 104 (a) as' well. Going by Ext. C 18, 
AW36 who is closely related to FW2 is an NDF activist (1 do not forget 
that AW36 had denied that and FW 2 claimed ignorance about the 
Organizational connection of AW36). These are circumstances 
indicating that it was not merely the 148 accused who are behind the 
massacre on 2-5-2003 but, there are other forces behind that incident 

23. The B Party No. 2 (N.D.F.) examined BW25 show that R.S.S. 
workers are accused in Cr. No. 282/98 of Tirur Police station for the 
murder of one Yassir for his conversion from Hinduism to Islam. BW27 
is examine to show that one Venugopal, said to be an R.S.S activists is 
accused in Cr. No. 101/99 of Fort Kochi police station for the 
unauthorized possession of explosive: BW16 is examined and Exts. 
B152 and 153 marked to prove that R.S.S. activists are accused in Cr. 
No. 39 05 of Vallikunnu Police Station for attacking the N.D.F activists. 
BW 17 is examined and Exts. B154 and 155 marked to prove that R.S.S. 
activists axe involved in Cr. No. 8 1/05 of Kathiroor Police Station for 
unauthorized possession of explosives. BW 18 is examined and Exts. B 



60 



156 and 157 marked to prove involvement of R.S.S; activists in the 
murder of an NDF activist. 

24. Certainly, the above mentioned evidence produced by the B party 
No. 2, prima facie refers to some of R.S.S. activists involving in 
fascist/fundamentalist activities. In fact , Aw24 opined that the R.S.S., 
V H.P and N.D.F. are terrorist organizations operating in the S of 
Kerala . But , that the R.S.S. or V H.P are stated to be terrorist 
organizations is no answer to the issue on hand. 1 do not forget that the 
B Party No. 2 produced several books, magazines, extracts from Judicial 
Commission Reports etc. which, according to the B P ' No. 2 indicated 
the fascist and fundamentalist nature of the' SanghParivar 
Organizations. The Commission is not present inquiring into the 
question which are all the fundamentalist terrorist , organizations 
operating in the State. That is at matter for the State Government to 
probe into deeply 

25. In the light of the facts, circumstances and the oral and 
documentary evidence stated above, there is weight in the evidence of 
CWl, CW3 and AW24 regarding the fundamentalist/terrorist activities 
indulged in by some NDF activists. Prima facie, it is difficult accept the 
contention of the B party No. that its activities are confined to what is 
stated 1 Ext. B 99 to B 107. 

26. The evidence on recorded thus revealed that N.D.F. activists were 
actively involved in the planning and execution of the massacre on 2-5- 
2003. Then, the next question is whether the N.D.F. as an organization 
is behind the massacre?. 1 did not come across any direct evidence in 
that line . The B party No. 2 relied on the version of AW3S that the 
CBCID team had checked up with the office bearers of the N.D:F. and 
verified their telephone call sheets but, found no involvement for the 



61 



organization. But it is difficult to expect such direct evidence for the 
involvement of the organization. It is prima facie revealed from 
Ext.CSl, statement of an N.D.F. activist recorded by CW34 that the 
N.D.F. men were undergoing training in shooting at Marad Beach using 
air guns There is the evidence of AW27 and BW3 about the NDF giving 
physical training to its cadres at Marad Beach. It is unlikely that this 
was done without the blessings of heir local leadership, at least. It is 
disclosed from the evidence that the massacre on 2-5-2003 was the 
result of a long drawn plan, spread over several months. Weapons 
including country bombs were collected or made from different places, 
brought to Marad Beach and stock- piled there, well in advance. 
Though, according to AW35, only a small amount was used for the 
planning and execution of the massacre, in the , way the conspiracy was 
made and was carried out and the collection of large number weapons 
from different places the large funds required to defend the case that 
will follow and maintain the family of the accused, it is difficult to 
accept that version of AW3S. Large funds must have been raised for the 
purpose. Ext. C 51 stated that foreign funds were used at Marad Beach. 
Ext C 29 series shows that collection of funds started even from abroad, 
about 7 months before the massacre. It is revealed from Ext.SS (the 
statement of A141 - H Party No. 2) that the conspirators had obtained the 
help of N.D.F leader, Hamsakoya of Chettipady and others to prepare 
the plan and execute it. (According to AW3S, Hamsakoya referred in 
Ext.SS, is a 'congress man' and he was questioned. But he does not 
remember whether the statement of Hamsakoya was recorded. Counsel 
for F party submitted that no such statement was recorded. But that 
version of AW3S that Hamsakoya was a congressman cannot be 
accepted in the light of the statement in ExtSS that he was an N.D.F. 
activist.) Ext. S 1 to ' S3 and S5 revealed that some of the local 



62 



leaders of the NDF are involved in the conspiracy for the massacre. I 
also stated that the attack was in guerilla style as described by FW6. 
The operation was planned and executed in such a meticulous manner 
that the intelligence Wings also were not able to do much bout it. In the 
normal course, it is difficult to think that few poor, uneducated or under 
educated and unsophisticated fishermen would be able to do that. The 
facts, circumstances as well as the methodology used by the perpetrators 
strongly indicated the presence of a well kint organization behind It is 
quite unlikely that the NDF activists would involve in the planning and 
execution of the massacre without the blessings of their local 
leadership, atleast. 

27. Notice u/s. 8 B were served on the Beypore unit of the I.U.M.L., the 
Mahal Committee of the Marad Juma Masjid (H Party No.l), Sri. P. P. 
Moideen Koya (H Party No. 2) and AW3 (H Party No. 3) They denied 
involvement in the massacre in any manner. 

28. So far as the I.U.M.L. is concerned, there is no direct evidence to 
show that the I.U.M.L. units as a party are involved in the conspiracy or 
massacre. Though, the A parties have a case that AW 12, Sri. P K. 
Kunhalikutty is connected with the massacre, after consideration of the 
entire materials, I did not find sufficient evidence in that line. True, as 
per Ext. C44 series (statements of BW30 recorded by CW34), AW12 
reportedly had some connection with the NDF. AW7 proved Exts. X3 
and X4, also to show that AW 12 had connection with the NDF. AW 12 
explained that when a representation from the local MLA. for 
withdrawal of Cr. 87/100 of Kondotty P S. (allegedly involving NDF 
activists) came before him, he only put the note CM. may see' and 
forwarded the file to the Chief Minister. That item of evidence is not 
sufficient to hold that AW 12 had connection with the NDF. Even if it is 



63 



assumed that AW12 had some connection with the NDF, that did not 
mean that he is in any way connected with all the activities of NDF, 
good or bad. The, fear expressed by AW 12 against CBI investigation of 
the case is not sufficient to hold that AW 12 is connected with the 
massacre. 

29. AW3 (H Party No. 3 ) is the local leader of the I.U.M.L. and 
Chairman of the Calicut Development Authority. Sri. PP Moideen Koya 
(H Party No. 2 ) is also a local leader of the I.U.M.L. and was member 
from ward No. 20 Which took in Marad Beach as well. He is the brother 
of Kunhikoya killed at Marad Beach on 31-2UU2. He was also secretary 
of the Mahal Committee of the Marad Juma Masjid (H Party No.l). He is 
A 141 in Cr. 82 /03 of Beypore PS- (Cr. 116/ CH/03 of CBCID ). Going 
by Ext.X2, SI. No. 71 there, is also a local leader of the I.U.M.L. and 
accused in that case. It is revealed from the evidence of AW2 that in the 
Calendars seized from the Marad Juma Masjid following the massacre 
on 2-5-2003 the date "2-5-2003" had been rounded in red ink. 
According to H Party No. 2 and associates, it was because the 'Nikah' of 
a resident nearby was scheduled to be held in the Madrassa attached to 
the Mosque on 2-5-2003. It is difficult to believe that it was on account 
of the 'Nikah' that the date '2-5-2003' was specifically rounded in 'red' 
ink in both the Calendars. If that be so, the Calendars should have 
shown other days also in the same way. When some other 'Nikah' were 
performed there. There is no such case or evidence. The use of 'red' 
ink is indicative of bloodshed planned on 2-5-2003. 2-5-2003 was a 
Friday when the Muslim fishermen will be off duty and remaining at the 
shore while as usual the Hindu fishermen would have gone into the sea 
for fishing . A most convenient day indeed, for the murderous assault 
the Khasi of the mosque is an accused in Cr. 82/03 of Beypore PS. Part 
of the conspiracy was hatched up in the Mosque. Evidence revealed 



64 



that large number of weapons including countrybombs were stockpiled 
in the mosque and its compound, well in advance. Facts, circumstances 
md evidence revealed that the date for the assault, in the normal course 
must have been fixed with the knowledge of the Mahal Committee or at 
least, its leaders. Evidence of AW27 shows that few minutes before the 
incident, getting some information about that, he telephoned to the 
Marad Juma Masjid, somebody attended the call but learning that AW 
27 is an intelligence official, disconnected the phone. After the 
massacre, some of the culprits escaped into the Mosque. Immediately 
after the Police reached the place, the local Muslims including women 
and children blocked the police entering the Mosque and for the 
purpose, surrounded the Mosque. The evidence on record revealed that 
on 3-1-2002, following the ' murder of Kunhikoya, there was a bank 
call from the same Mosque and following that chanting 'Bolo Takbir', 
some Muslims marched to the house of Pushparajan and killed Shinjith.. 
Thus; evidence revealed that the Mahal committee or its leaders were 
involved in the conspiracy, had prior information about the incident and 
allowed its premises to be used for the conspiracy and the preparation 
for the crime. The evidence of FW3 shows that Sri. PP Modieen Koya 
(H Party No. 2 had tried to convince him that Bijili S/o. Aboobacker 
(one of the prime accused in Cr. 82/03 of Beypore PS) was an I.U.M.L. 
activist, that Bijili is not involved in any criminal activity and hence, 
Fw3 need not conduct much enquiry about ' Bijili or even suspect 
Bijilli. Evidence of FW5 is that when himself and party were coming to 
the Marad Beach learning about the massacre and reached Priya 
Junction near Marad, P P Moideen Koya (H Party No. 2). and others 
who carried knives, country bombs, stones and sticks obstructed their 
movement throwing stones, country bombs etc. at them. Evidence of 
AW3 shows that Sri P P Moideen Koya (H party No. 2) was aware of the 



65 



threat made by Mohammadali to avenge the murder of Aboobacker. 
These circumstances are sufficient to show that the Khasi, PP Moideen 
Koya (H party No. 2) and other members of the Mahal committee (H 
party No.l ) were parties to the conspiracy or atleast, had information 
about the conspiracy and the ° impending violence. I stated from Ext. 
X2 that SI. no. 71 there, is another local leader of the I.U.M.L. and 
reported to be party to the conspiracy., Ext.X2 shows Mohammed Ali, 
one of the main conspirator and accused in the massacre on 2-5-2003 as 
an I.U.M.L. activist. 

30. Turning to AW3 (H party No. 3), I stated that the he was the 
Chairman of the Calicut Development Authority during the relevant 
time and a prominent leader of the I.U.M.L. in the District. Ext. AS (a) 
is the report in 'Deshabhimani' dt 9-5-2003 that the massacre was with 
the knowledge of AW3. Though business interests were attributed 
against AW3 for allegedly being party to the conspiracy to eliminate the 
Hindu community from Marad Beach arid though; AW3 conceded that 
she has some landed property in Marad Beach, evidence is not sufficient 
to hold that AW3 had any such business interest or was a party to the 
.conspiracy. AW3 conceded that he was questioned by the C.B.C.I.D. 
thrice. He admitted that during April - May, 2002, P.P. Moideen Koya 
(H party No. 2) had met him along with Muhammed Ali, brother of late 
Aboobacker (another accused Crime No. 82/03). Muhammed Ali told 
AW3 about his desire to avenge the death of his brother. AW3 claimed 
that he dissuaded Muhammed Ali and sent him away. It is his further 
claim that he had informed the ' Relief Committee that they should be 
more vigilant but he had never intimated any of the authorities about 
Muhammed Ali expressing his desire to avenge the killing of his brother 
. AW3 was under the impression that though the threat made by 
Muhammed Ali was potential, he had later given up that idea. That 



66 



version of AW3 cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt. A person of 
the stature of AW3 who was aware of the grave situation at Marad 
Beach following the communal riot in January, 2002 when informed by 
Muhammed Ali about his desire to avenge the killing of his brother 
should have in the normal course, intimated the authorities about that, 
rather than keeping quiet about that and asking the Relief Committee to 
be more vigilant. I have referred to the evidence of FW3 that on one or 
two occasions, P.P. Moideen Koya (H party No. 2) had come to the 
police station accompanying Bijili and claimed that the latter is an 
I.U.M.L. worker and that there is no need to suspect Bijili or conduct 
any enquiry about him. It is difficult to think that AW3 was unaware of 
all these happenings inspite of his conceding that P P. Modieen Koya 
had come to him. along with Muhammed Ali, that it was in. the presence 
of P P. Moideen Koya that Mummedali revealed his desire to avenge 
and that according to AW3, he was having close contact with P.P 
Moideen Koya (though, according to AW3, in connection with party 
affairs). 

31. There is a case for the A parties that the arrest of some of the 
accused made by the C.B.C.I.D. Unit was stage managed and that AW3 
had produced those accused before the C.B.C.I.D. AW3 denied that . 
But I found a report suggesting that, from the Central Intelligence Wing 
(the State Govt, may refer to the tile initially marked as Ext.S 19). It is 
revealed from . Ext.X2 that 82 accused in Crime No. 82/03 of Beypore 
police station (cr. 116.CR/03 of C.B.C.I.D.) were I.U.M.L. workers. It 
is in evidence that after the massacre , when the Police entered the 
Marad Juma Masjid Mosque and wanted PP. Modieen koya (H Party 
No. 2) to come out of the Mosque, he wanted the I.U.M.L. leaders from 
the District Committee office of that Party to arrive at the scene before 
he came out of the Mosque. Certainly, P.P. Modieen Koya (H party 



67 



No. 2) was soliciting, awaiting or expecting help from his Party leaders. 
Ext.S5, the statement of P.PMoideen Koya (H Party No. 2) shows that 
Muhammedali had atleast, sought the assistance of I.U.M.L. for the 
retaliation. Reports say that immediately after the incident on 2-5-2003, 
there was a telephone call from one of the accused to the Mobile phone 
of AW3. AW3, would however, say that the said Mobile phone, though 
belonged to him, was in the use of his business partner, Basheer during 
2-5-2003. But Ext.A7 is the statement of AW3 to he police that the said 
mobile connection was transferred in the name of Basheer one month 
before the incident. AW3 denied making such statement. It is only 
reasonable to think, in the above facts and circumstances that AW3 had 
information about the conspiracy and the impending violence at Marad 
Beach. It is quite unlikely, in the facts and circumstances that such large 
number of I.U.M.L. workers including few of its local leaders were 
involved in the conspiracy without the blessings of their leaders 
atleast,' at the local level. That is the reason for AW 12 opposing the 
C.B.I, investigation and raising his own apprehension about the CBI 
investigation. 

32. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that the massacre at 
Marad, Beach on 2-5-2003 was not merely a retaliation for the murder 
of the three Muslims at Marad Beach on 3/4-1-2002. Instead, the 
Muslim fundamentalist / terrorist elements, taking advantage of the 
communal divide in the area and the revenge, some of the relatives of 
Aboobaker (killed on 4-1-2002) had in his killing, attacked the Hindus 
at Marad Beach on 2-5-2003. Evidence, facts and circumstances 
revealed that (apart from the accused already booked) there are other 
forces behind the conspiracy and the massacre. The NDF and lUML 
activists are involved in the conspiracy and massacre. It is quite 
unlikely that those activists got involved in the conspiracy and ' 



68 



massacre, without the blessings of their local leadership, atleast. Some 
of the Mahal Committee members of Marad Juma Masjid ( H Party No. 

1) were parties to the conspiracy. Sri P.P Moideen Koya ( H Party No. 

2) was a Party to the conspiracy or had prior information about that. 
There is every reason to think that AW3 (H party No. 3) had prior 
formation about the conspiracy and the impending violence at Marad 
Beach. A Multi Agency consisting of the officers of the Central Bureau 
of Investigation, Central Intelligence Bureau and Directorate of 
Revenue Intelligence has to investigate into the larger conspiracy 
involving other forces behind the conspiracy and massacre, and, fix the 
liability. 



THOMAS P. JOSEPH 
COMMISSION OF inquiry 



69